The Assembly met at 10.30 am (Mr Speaker in the Chair).
Members observed two minutes’ silence.

Street Trading Bill: Consideration Stage

Mr Speaker: As no amendments to clauses 1 to 8 have been tabled, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to group those clauses.
Clauses 1 to 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 9 (Discretionary grounds for refusing an application)

Mr Fred Cobain: I beg to move amendment 1: In page 6, line 36, leave out "or".
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 2:
"or
(iv) there are sufficient traders trading in the street from shops or otherwise in the articles, things or services in which the applicant desires to trade." — [Mr Cobain]
No 3 (amendment to amendment 2):
"street, or at premises adjoining it, in the articles, things or services in which the applicant wishes to trade." — [Mr Morrow]
No 4:
"( ) it is believed that the preparation or sale of a specified type of article or thing would adversely affect the general amenity of the area." — [Mr S Wilson]

Mr Fred Cobain: The Social Development Committee took evidence from a number of sources and considered the Bill in depth. In general, the Bill is welcomed by the Committee, as it provides for a modern and effective framework for the regulation of street trading in our towns and cities.
It is the Committee’s belief that this Bill will have an important and enduring impact on modern trading in towns and cities throughout Northern Ireland. This Bill is a long-overdue response to a rapidly deteriorating situation. Illegal trading on our streets has long been on the increase. There is huge opposition to the spread of unsightly street trading, which operates in flagrant disregard of existing but outdated legislation. This Bill represents a complex piece of legislation that deals with issues that have not been dealt with for well over 70 years.
The Social Development Committee is agreed that it is necessary to modernise legislation and introduce meaningful control over illegal street trading. It also wants to strive to add to the new sense of vitality and vibrancy that is developing in our towns and cities. As a Committee which is concerned with the regeneration of Northern Ireland’s towns and cities, we want to play our role in encouraging ingenuity and new dimensions.
Therefore the Assembly needs to get this legislation right, not only for the health, safety and convenience of the public, but also for the sake of those street traders who bring a welcome blend of colour and character to commercial areas. To further this objective, the Committee is proposing two amendments to clause 9. The Committee feels that if, for example, there are already five people selling flowers in a particular location, or that there is a plethora of burger bars, a council may occasionally want to use this as grounds to refuse an application.
Difficulties with regard to planning legislation have arisen in the past due to a lack of an adequacy clause. These difficulties will also apply to street trading. There could be 10 burger bars or hot-food takeaways on one stretch of the road. Nothing can be done about that under the Bill as it is currently drafted. It may be suitable to have 10 pitches in a street, but it may not be desirable for them all to sell the same thing.
By way of illustration, the Committee believes that 10 burger bars in one street would undoubtedly have an adverse affect on an area’s amenity due to odour, litter, noise and so forth. Adequacy could be used in that scenario. The Committee believes that it is essential for the Bill to have a clause covering the need for adequacy for certain types of street trading.
I ask the Assembly to fully support the Committee’s views on this. I know that the Minister and his Department have subsequently considered the aspects of adequacy and my Committee’s deep concerns. In light of this amendment, they have tabled their own amendment to ensure that this addition to the Bill is an effective and integral part of regulating street trading in our towns and cities. I commend the Minister and his Department for this, and I urge the Assembly’s full support in endorsing these amendments.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Are we dealing only with amendment 2?

Mr Speaker: The Assembly is dealing with the first group of amendments — numbers 1 to 4 — including the amendment standing in your own name.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I welcome the fact that this Bill has finally come before the House. It would be remiss of me if I did not pay tribute to Nigel Dodds, former Minister for Social Development, and to Maurice Morrow for bringing this forward.
During the direct rule period, councils across Northern Ireland waited approximately 5 years for this legislation’s introduction. They highlighted the inadequacy of the existing street trading legislation and the fact that those who chose to trade illegally in town and city streets across Northern Ireland faced little or no sanction. Despite the urgency of the case, especially in Belfast — but in other towns across the Province too — the direct rule Administration showed no haste in bringing forward adequate and proper legislation. The fact that this legislation is before the House today is an indication that matters are responded to when local people are in charge of issues in Northern Ireland.
I want to make it clear that this legislation is not about stopping street trading. In many cases, street trading can add to the colour and vibrancy of a town and a city. It provides a different type of shopping experience, which many of us have viewed as an asset in other cities. However, the situation in Northern Ireland was that street trading was not an asset in many town centres; it had become a detriment to them. Indeed, the number of complaints and letters I have had would indicate that.
This piece of legislation is welcome, as there will now be effective sanctions for councils to use against those who choose to trade in our streets illegally. However, as with all pieces of legislation, and especially those drawn up by people who are not the actual practitioners of the law, there can be gaps.
One such gap will be dealt with by amendment 4, which is being moved in my name. It deals with the nuisance that can be caused by some activities, especially those that do not sit easily with the trading activities located beside them. For example, in a number of places across Belfast outdoor burger bars are located at the doors of shops selling clothes. Inevitably, food preparation creates a smell, which in many cases wafts into the premises and clings to the clothes. Those traders — who are paying substantial rates and who have a substantial investment in their business — find that their business is being affected detrimentally.
Although it may be a huge nuisance for the clothes shops in question, it would not constitute a nuisance as defined in the Public Health Act, because it does not lead to rodent infestation, or whatever. Therefore there needs to be a clause to give councils discretionary powers to look at that type of situation.
There may be a number of objections to this, and I want to deal with some of them quickly. When the Committee discussed the matter the first objection was that an amendment such as this would be so general that it could be interpreted too widely and, therefore, would not make for good legislation. I suppose that suggestion also applies to the amendment that has been moved by the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee.
Looking at the Street Trading Bill, one can see that this argument is not unique to amendment 4. Indeed, the very nature of this type of legislation requires that you cannot be too descriptive — otherwise many types of activities could fall outside the legislation. For example, in clause 9 the first provision that a council may use to refuse an application is that the location at which the applicant wishes to trade as a stationary trader is unsuitable. It could be argued that that provision is fairly wide. Another provision is that it the trading would cause "undue interference or inconvenience". Others provide for the revocation of a licence if someone "has persistently failed" to do something or other. None of those terms are defined.
Therefore anyone who says that this amendment will widen the legislation too much or will make it too vague fails to understand the very nature of the type of legislation we are dealing with. It cannot be prescriptive. If it were, it would not work because there would always be loopholes.
Another argument that has been made is that the amendment would discriminate against a particular kind of trader. For example, I have mentioned hot-food bars. The defence against that is bizarre. Those who say that this is not necessary argue that a council could stop all hot-food bars if it so wished. Indeed, it was suggested that a council should have the power to say that an activity is not permitted. A clause that gives a council some discretion and allows an activity in a suitable place is a better alternative to using the legislation as a sledgehammer and banning all activities that might cause the difficulties I referred to earlier.
Another argument suggested that if there were clothes shops on a street, that street should not be designated as being suitable for street trading. That is more all-embracing than the discretionary power suggested in the amendment.
It was also argued — and I found this bizarre — that since the Bill deals with public health matters there should be changes made to the public health legislation. However, the House is not dealing with the kind of nuisance that that is designed to deal with. The Bill is dealing with specific reasons for considering if a location is suitable or unsuitable for street trading. When the Social Development Committee discussed the Bill it was repeatedly stated that if there was already legislation in place to deal with an activity then one should go back to the primary legislation. In the Bill there are references to street trading interfering with car parking. One may therefore argue that the matter should be dealt with under traffic legislation. There are also references to traders who use under-age people on their stalls, so it could be argued that it should be dealt with under child protection legislation.
There will be a certain amount of crossover in the legislation. The amendment gives councils the discretionary power to look at situations where they have to justify their reasons for making a decision if an appeal is made against that decision. That will be a problem. Therefore it is important that it is dealt with now and that effective legislation is introduced. In six months’ time the Assembly will not want councils deciding that changes have to be made in health legislation or some other legislation. Those changes could take a year or two to get through.
Many street traders want to go into city centres to offer a different shopping experience and to add colour to them. However, there are others who seek to abuse the system and to use every available loophole. It is important that the Assembly introduce effective, watertight legislation that will enable councils to properly control the activities that go on in towns and cities.

Mr Alban Maginness: I support the amendments that have been presented by the Chairperson of the Social Development Committee and by Mr Sammy Wilson. The Assembly is aiming for controlled and regulated street trading. The amendments will assist in that and make effective control of street trading possible.
Members do not want to put anyone off the streets. We want to see people on the streets, trading in a regulated, controlled fashion. We do not want to see any illegal street trading, and this legislation will deal effectively with that.
MrWilson’s amendment is a very valuable contribution. There is a problem. It may not be the most serious problem, but ordinary retailers in the centre of Belfast, Derry or other towns could have their trade adversely affected by the smells from burger stands, which will inevitably contaminate clothing and other items in their shops. It is a very effective amendment, but there may be other problems relating to the general amenity of the area. The legislation should also include a weapon to deal with that.
The argument is that clause 9(1)(a)(i) could deal with it. That is being put forward as an effective means for dealing with that problem or series of problems. That may well be, but MrWilson’s amendment will deal with this problem. It will bring certainty to the legislation, and that is very important. It should also be remembered that this will be a discretionary power given to the council, and not something that will act as a total block or prohibition on the type of activity that could lead to a nuisance for ordinary retailers.
Amendment4, together with clause 9(1)(a)(i), is a belt-and-braces exercise. If it cannot be dealt with under clause 9(1)(a)(i), then it can be dealt with under MrWilson’s amendment. It has particular value in strengthening the legislation, and Members should seek to strengthen it rather than allow some sort of vagueness or escape that would not deal with the problem of street trading.
Therefore I am happy to support amendment4 and also amendments1, 2 and 3.

Mr Nigel Dodds: We welcome the Consideration Stage of the Bill. When I was Minister, the Department for Social Development gave high priority to this Bill because we believed, and still believe, that illegal street trading is a major problem, particularly in Belfast city centre. It has been around for a long time and Belfast City Council, as well as other local authorities and councillors, has been anxious to see progress on reforming the law, which is totally inadequate as it currently stands.
Therefore we welcome the fact that we have reached this important stage in getting the legislation through the Assembly. I believe it will make a real difference. As Members will be aware, the current position is regulated by legislation, passed in 1929, that was designed for a situation totally different from that which currently prevails on our streets.
Every year, particularly in the run-up to Christmas, we see a flourishing illegal market. We can even see it in the city centre at the moment. I have received numerous complaints, as have others, about the way in which these stalls are operated, the total lack of regulation and of any proper health or hygiene standards appropriate to the selling of food, and the obstruction caused to users of the footpaths, particularly disabled people, mothers with prams and young children and the elderly. There is very little redress, in many cases, where goods of a shoddy or unfit nature are sold. There is very little comeback for those who purchase goods at those illegal stalls.
The centre of Belfast has been turned into some sort of shabby street market. In some of our prime retail areas, traders and shopkeepers paying very high rents and rates are being grossly disadvantaged by this sort of illegal activity. I want to stress, as others have stressed, that we are not against properly regulated street trading — it can add vibrancy and colour to our streets. But what is happening at present is simply unacceptable on a number of fronts and it has to be dealt with. I know from my own experience that Belfast City Council has tried and tried to enforce the old legislation, which has proved totally inadequate. At the same time, it has been looking at ways to encourage legal street trading and to encourage something that will add to our city centre and bring people in, rather than turning people off as the current situation does.
I welcome these proposals. I am glad that the Minister has listened carefully to the arguments that have been put forward by Members. I thank him for taking the time to meet with a number of us. I know that he has also spoken to the Committee about these issues. I believe that the legislation as presented, which I hope will go through this House, will go a long way to ensuring that we do not have to endure another Christmas like those we have previously endured, particularly on the streets of Belfast city centre. I believe that this will make a real difference to illegal street trading.
I particularly welcome the clauses that ensure that councils will have real powers to seize goods that are being traded illegally. That will give councils an opportunity to put a speedy end to illegal street trading. After taking people to court, and in many cases trying to find out who they are, what their real names are and what their proper addresses are, you discover that at the end of the day all they receive is a rather small fine. It has proved totally inadequate.
I support the amendments tabled by the Committee and by MrWilson. I believe that he outlined very succinctly the reasons behind the addition of his amendment. It is important that there should be in this legislation the sort of provision that he has tabled to take account of the impact that the preparation and sale of certain types of articles, particularly burgers and hot food, have on the general amenity of the area. It is important that that is included in the legislation as one of the factors that can be taken into account. I hope that the House will support that amendment.
We have an opportunity, through this legislation, to make a real difference. It will be warmly welcomed and applauded by local authority and council officials who have to enforce action against illegal street trading. This will give them the ammunition and power to carry out that work for the benefit of our town and city centres and for our residents.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I want to acknowledge an important point that a number of Members have made, which is that this Bill cannot be interpreted as anti-street trading legislation. It is anything but that. It is an attempt to tidy up the situation.
I thank the Chairman of the Social Development Committee, Mr Cobain, for outlining why the Committee is bringing this amendment before the House. I understand the Committee’s desire to allow district councils to have control over the proliferation of particular types of goods, and I am happy, therefore, to accept the amendment in principle.
However, the Department’s legislative draftsman has advised that the wording of the proposed amendment is flawed as the definition of "street" in the Bill specifically excludes any area in enclosed premises. Therefore the wording "trading in the street from shops" would not be technically correct. The opportunity has been taken to replace the word "desires" with the word "wishes" since this would be consistent with similar provisions within the Bill such as in clause 5 (4)(b) and clause 9(1)(a). I hope Members will accept the amendments. The changes will not, in any way, affect the content of the amendment — they are very much technical changes.
I thank MrWilson for explaining the reasons behind his proposed amendment to clause 9. The provisions of the Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878 deal with the issue of odours in a general way. However, they are totally ineffective in dealing with the problem of people selling burgers in the street — a concept that was unheard of when the legislation was introduced.
I understand the concern that odours from those traders could permeate shops, particularly clothing shops. This provision will provide councils with powers to deal with a very specific problem. Therefore I propose to accept the amendment. However, I have some reservations about the precise wording of the amendment. I want to consider that in greater detail, and I may bring forward refinements at the Further Consideration Stage. I do not think there are any other points that need to be dealt with at this particular point.

Mr Fred Cobain: The Committee welcomes the Minister’s comments — especially the intentions to strengthen and improve the quality and clarity of the legislation. I thank the Minister for his time and for his response the Committee. I think everyone in the House will be pleased if the legislation, as it stands, goes through.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Amendment (No 2) proposed: In page 6, after line 40, insert
"or
(iv) there are sufficient traders trading in the street from shops or otherwise in the articles, things on services in which the applicant desires to trade". — [Mr Cobain]

Mr Speaker: Because amendment 3 is an amendment to amendment 2, we will take amendment 3 — if moved — and vote on that and then vote on the amendment as amended, if it is amended.
Amendment (No 3)(amendment to amendment 2) made: Leave out from "street" to the end and add
"street, or at premises adjoining it, in the articles, things or services in which the applicant wishes to trade". — [Mr Morrow]
Amendment 2, as amended, made: In page 6, after line 40 insert
"or
(iv) there are sufficient traders trading in the street, or at premises adjoining it, in the articles, things or services in which the applicant wishes to trade. — [Mr Cobain]
Amendment (No 4) made: In page 6, after line 40 insert
" ( ) it is believed that the preparation or sale of a specified type of article or thing would adversely affect the general amenity of the area". — [Mr S Wilson]
Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 10 (Revocation, etc. of street trading licences)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move amendment 5: In page 7, line 32, leave out ‘applicant’ and insert "licence holder".
The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:
No 6
No 7
These amendments set out the circumstances in which a district council may revoke an existing street trading licence. As a licence will already be in existence, the provisions will only be relevant to licence holders. However, at three places in the clause, reference is being made to the "applicant". The amendments correct those errors.
Amendment 5 agreed to.
Amendment (No 6) made: In page 7, line 33, leave out "applicant" and insert "licence holder". — [Mr Morrow]
Amendment (No 7) made: In page 7, line 40, leave out "applicant" and insert "licence holder". — [Mr Morrow]
Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 11 to 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 17 (Unlicensed street trading)

Mr Maurice Morrow: I beg to move amendment 8: In page 13, line 8, insert
"( ) is the holder of a street trading licence and contravenes a condition of a kind specified in paragraph (a) or (c) of section 7(1);".
The following amendment stood on the Marshalled List:
No 9 (clause 21): In page 16, line 11, leave out "(a) to (g)" and insert "(b), (d), (e), (f) or (g)". — [Mr Morrow]
Amendment 8 will make it an offence to engage in street trading without a full-term licence, or contrary to the terms of a temporary licence. Anyone doing so will be liable to have his or her goods and equipment seized by a district council.
The Bill, as currently drafted, makes it an offence for a licensed trader to trade in a location, or on a day, or at a time, not specified on the licence. However, it does not permit a council to seize the goods of the offender. That could leave the door open for unscrupulous traders to apply for a licence for one street, with the sole intention of trading in a more lucrative street. It could take several months to have the licence revoked, during which time the person could continue to trade illegally without the threat of seizure.
The most appropriate solution to the problem is my amendment to clause 17. This will make it an offence — under clause 17 — for a street trading licence holder to trade in a different place, on a different day, or at a different time, to that specified in the licence. Persons reasonably suspected of committing an offence under clause 17 may have their goods seized. Licensed traders will therefore be brought under this sanction. A consequential amendment will be required in clause 21(a) to remove the reference there to paragraph (a) and (c) of clause 7 and bring it into line with clause 17.

Mr Nigel Dodds: I welcome the amendment. Clearly, there was clearly a gap in which those who obtained a licence for one location could move to another location. There would still be penalties under the original drafting of the legislation, taking the form of fines if prosecution were to result.
Clearly, one of the problems with the original legislation we are now reforming is that there are penalties in the form of fines but, by the time that people are taken through the courts and fined, the damage is already done and the illegal activity has been allowed to continue. This amendment will close that gap. It will ensure that powers of seizure will apply on the part of the local authority to those who have a licence to trade in one location but attempt to move to another. The amendment is to be warmly welcomed because that was clearly going to be a problem for councils. I commend the Minister for recognising that and for moving to close the gap. I trust that it will have the support of the House.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I also welcome the fact that a considerable gap in the legislation has been closed by the inclusion of this amendment. As clause 17 stood, all that could have happened had someone obtained a licence, as Mr Dodds has said, is that he could have been taken to court and the maximum level 3 fine imposed. This shows the importance of being able to scrutinise legislation more closely in the House. In Belfast, we have often found that some of the unscrupulous traders are quite happy to go to court and to have a fine imposed — sometimes a number of fines. Then, when trading is a bit slack, they go to jail for a week or so instead of paying the fines, and that is the end of the story. This change will prevent that. Anyone with a licence who traded in the wrong place — perhaps used the licence to get the door open and then waltzed all around a town or city — will now no longer be able to do so, because the seizure powers will apply.
When we looked at this, the argument was that a council could revoke a licence. However, clause 10 states that a licence can be revoked only if a person persistently trades in the wrong place or breaks the terms of the licence. As Mr Dodds has said, someone who wished to abuse his licence by trading in a more lucrative patch than that originally designated for him has been able to keep on doing so for a considerable time before the council could revoke the licence. Fines have not been effective, and the revocation of a licence cannot be done immediately. In proposing this amendment, therefore, the Minister has recognised that the legislation fell far short of what was required to deal with those traders who abused the conditions of their licences, and that is to be welcomed.

Mr Maurice Morrow: I do not wish to add anything to what I have already said. I understand that the two Members who spoke support the amendment enthusiastically, and I commend it to the House.
Amendment 8 agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Mr Speaker: No amendments have been tabled to clauses 18 to 20. I therefore propose, by leave, to put the question on those clauses en bloc.
Clauses 18 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21 (Other offences)
Amendment (No 9) made:
Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 22 to 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedules 1 to 3 agreed to.
Long title agreed to.

Mr Speaker: That concludes the Consideration Stage of the Street Trading Bill, which now stands referred to the Speaker.

Assembly: Oral Answers to Questions

Mr Speaker: I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that three questions to the Minister of the Environment for this afternoon have been redirected. It was only at 9 o’clock this morning that the Business Office was advised that these questions — number 4, from MrJohnFee; number 9, in the name of Mr P J Bradley; and number 10, in the name of MrJimWilson — had been transferred to the Department for Regional Development.
Advice was received earlier that question 5, in the name of MrKieranMcCarthy, would be answered by the Minister of Finance and Personnel.
I draw this matter to the attention of the House because it was a very late call, and Members who tabled other questions will need to know the facts. I have also asked that the matter be shown on the annunicator. It is not helpful to the House when calls of this kind are made at such a late stage.

Mr Peter Robinson: This seems to be occurring regularly. The Table Office in the House of Commons would not accept a question not properly directed. It is not the job of the Speaker to waste his time and, indeed, ours in going through this procedure regularly. Surely we can get a system in the Assembly and the Departments to ensure that every question on the Paper is directed to the appropriate Minister.

Mr Speaker: In fairness to the Business Office, I should say that the dilemma is that there is not always complete clarity on the part of Departments as to the boundaries for certain questions. On occasions, when the Business Office advises a Member that it believes his question to be outside the remit of one Department and within that of another, the Member is insistent that this is not the case. Usually, though not invariably, it turns out that the Business Office is correct.
Frequently, in the first instance, there is a lack of clarity on the part of Departments as to who precisely should take responsibility. I accept entirely that this does not make good use of the time of the Speaker or of the House. I trust that, as these issues are clarified, we will be able to set sound precedents.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: Is it not true that when a Member is denied the opportunity of putting his question on the day for which it is tabled, he gets a written reply, disadvantaging him in that he is not able to ask a supplementary?

Mr Speaker: The Member is entirely correct. It is also a disadvantage to the House, in that other Members too are unable to ask supplementary questions. When there is such a late call — as has happened on three questions — Members may have sought to be present to ask supplementary questions. This creates considerable inconvenience for the House and is not satisfactory, which is why I have conveyed the matter to the Civil Service authorities.

Mr Jim Wilson: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. When I framed my question — you will obviously not permit me to go into detail about it — I was clearly drawing attention to a road safety matter in connection with reckless driving on the outside lane of the M2 in rush-hour traffic. It was clearly framed so as to be referred to Minister Sam Foster, as he is responsible for road safety. Somewhere along the way — and I have yet to discover where — the wording in my question was changed to "traffic-calming measures". I can understand why someone might have wanted to change it, but it has resulted in the question being redirected to another Minister. It was a late call, and I was disappointed to be told about it only this morning.

Mr Speaker: It would be wrong to take up the House’s time to go into the detail of the matter, but if the Member looks at the three questions he will find that the common factor is road safety. That is why they were directed to the Department of the Environment. The response was that responsibility might lie with the Department of the Environment but that since all the questions sought action and the only Department that could actually do anything about them was the one with responsibility for the roads in question, the matter was being transferred. It is an interesting dilemma, but it is a decision of the Executive, and one upon which the House voted at an early stage.

Mr P J Bradley: Further to that point of order —

Mr Speaker: This is not an opportunity for those whose questions were not put to find a way of getting them on the record. However, if it strictly a point of order, I will take it.

Mr P J Bradley: It is a correction. I was only seeking information — not asking for anything to be done. Is it unreasonable to expect the Minister for Regional Development to take my supplementary question today and give me an immediate written reply?

Mr Speaker: The Member is one of the few I have heard who only asked for information and did not want anything to be done. That is an interesting proposition. The Member will receive a written response from the Minister, as his Colleague indicated. It will be received, I trust, at an early stage. If not, perhaps the Member will advise me so that I may take the matter up on his behalf.

Mr Alex Maskey: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In relation to Mr Bradley’s comments, very often when one asks a question, it would be very foolish to expect something to be done — but we will leave that to one side. Following on from Jim Wilson’s comments, I know from my recent dealings with the Department of the Environment — having put a number of questions down — that it is very quick to say that the matter is nothing to do with it. Mr Speaker, I would like you to analyse the way in which this matter has been dealt with by the Department of the Environment. The Department of the Environment does have responsibility for road safety measures, and it could at least have had the courtesy to give Members responses to their questions, even if only to the effect that it wanted to refer matters to the Department for Regional Development. The Department of the Environment does have a legal responsibility for road safety measures.

Mr Speaker: I certainly undertake to look at the matter. There may be a question as to whether this is a matter upon which the Speaker can rule. However, if there is concern or discontent on the part of Members — and from the response it seems that there is — there may be another appropriate avenue to address the matter. I will advise Members as to how they might raise the question — and the Floor of the House will not necessarily be the appropriate place.

Mr Sam Foster: On a —

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order.

Mr Sam Foster: I just want to make it clear that —

Mr Speaker: I am sorry, but I cannot allow the Minister to make a point. However, perhaps we will be permitted to proceed to the next item on the Order Paper.

Mr Derek Hussey: I am awaiting a ruling on a point of order which is relative to this afternoon’s —

Mr Speaker: Order. I have sought to take that issue up with the Member outside. I will either do that or give a ruling at the beginning of Question Time today. I will say no more at this stage.

Planning (Compensation, Etc.) Bill: Final Stage

Mr Sam Foster: I beg to move
That the Planning (Compensation, etc.) Bill (NIA 7/00) do now pass.
This Bill will repeal various provisions in the Land Development Values Compensation Act (Northern Ireland) 1965 and the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. It will also correct a minor drafting error in the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. Parts I and II of the 1965 Act have been obsolete for some time now, and the last records of any compensation paid under them date back to 1988. A repeal of these parts can be regarded, therefore, as a tidying-up exercise.
The more significant provisions in the 1965 Act, which are to be repealed, can be found in section 29. This section has been giving rise to significant payments by my Department for the past 10 years or more. Typically, we have been paying out approximately £100,000 per year, and the current liability is in the region of £1·5 million. Under this section, compensation can be claimed for a refusal of planning permission in certain circumstances laid down in the Act. This has mostly concerned the reconstruction of old buildings which were in existence on 4 November, 1965.
Planning decisions are made for the good of all the community, and there is no place in a modern planning system for compensation for the refusal of planning permission in any circumstances. As significant sums have already been paid out under parts I and II of the Act, and under section 29, this Bill will not repeal the recovery provisions in the Act. This means that where compensation has been paid and planning permission is subsequently given for relevant development on the site, the Department will seek to recover the compensation paid.
The provisions of the 1972 Order which are to be repealed provide for compensation for a refusal of consent for the alteration or extension of a listed building where the alteration or extension does not constitute development for the purposes of requiring planning permission. It makes little sense to compensate in respect of a control that was introduced to protect listed buildings, and there would be no claimants under these provisions.
The final purpose of the Bill is to correct a minor drafting error in the 1991 Order which relates to rights of entry. Those parts of the legislation which deal with compensation shall be effective from 23 October 2000, when the Bill was introduced in the Assembly. No claim for compensation will be paid in respect of a refusal of planning permission or listed building consent where such an application was made on, or after, this date. All other claims will be processed in the normal manner. This is a straightforward Bill which removes both irrelevant and costly provisions from the statute book and corrects a minor drafting error. It will bring Northern Ireland’s planning compensation law into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I thank Members for their contributions in the earlier stages. I am particularly grateful to the Chairperson and members of the Environment Committee, who carried out detailed, clause-by-clause scrutiny of the Bill. I also thank the Committee for affording my officials the opportunity to give evidence during that scrutiny process.

Rev William McCrea: I thank the Minister for his consultation with my Committee on this Bill. Having discussed it, we decided that no amendments were necessary. I therefore put on record the Committee’s agreement with the reasons for bringing Northern Ireland’s legislation into line with that in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That the Planning (Compensation, etc.) Bill (NIA 7/00) do now pass.
The sitting was suspended at 11.29 am.
On resuming —

Assembly: Oral Answers to Questions

Mr Speaker: At the sitting of the Assembly on Monday 29 January, Mr Hussey raised a point of order in relation to the ruling that his oral question on rural proofing to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister was inadmissible. The question was ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it was a matter for the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development. The Deputy Speaker who was in the Chair at the time undertook to examine the issue.
I have taken advice on this matter and am satisfied that the Business Office was to decide that the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development was the lead Department. This has been confirmed in writing by the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. I have informed Mr Hussey of my decision.
However, his point of order raises a number of issues to do with convention on which clarification would be helpful to Members. First, appeals to the Speaker on the inadmissibility or otherwise of a question should in the first instance be made outside the Chamber. It would also be helpful if Members were to seek clarification on admissibility decisions from the Business Office before raising the issue with me.
Secondly, to ensure that the best use is made of Question Time, I remind Members that questions should be tabled to the Minister who has primary responsibility for the subject of the question — in other words, to the lead Department. The NNIA7 report of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister of 15 February 1999 contains some clarification of departmental responsibilities, and copies of that report are available from the Printed Paper Office.
Finally, insofar as there is a problem with clarifying departmental responsibilities or procedures for questions, I undertook this morning to explore the difficulties with which Members are confronted. I will advise the House further on these.

Mr John Fee: On 18 December 2000 I raised an issue with regard to Standing Order 19(1). I was advised that where there is ambiguity about the responsibility of any Department, we should in the first instance take advice from the Business Office. This morning I was one of a number of Members whose questions were arbitrarily diverted to another Department. No notice was given, and in my view it was an extremely blatant attempt to subvert the authority of the Assembly. Standing Order 19(1) provides for a question to be asked of a Member of the Executive Committee relating to the public affairs with which his or her Department is officially connected or to any matter of administration for which he or she is responsible. Surely when a question is tabled and published on the Question Paper, the Minister should explain in the Chamber why he or she is absolving him or herself of either total responsibility or the lead responsibility for answering it.

Mr Speaker: This matter was raised by several Members this morning. The problem centres round the question of ministerial responsibility and clarification of which Minister is the lead Minister and which Department is the lead Department.
Secondly, there is the question of timing. It was particularly disruptive for Members to learn only this morning that some questions would not be asked this afternoon. It was also disruptive for other Members whose questions were further down the list or who wished to put supplementaries. Accordingly, this morning I undertook to look into the matter, which I discussed briefly with the Business Committee at a lunchtime meeting. We will try to clarify the issue, but I am not persuaded that it will be possible to do so on the Floor of the House. This may take a little time, but we must clarify the matter for everyone’s sake and for the better administration of the Executive and the House.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. At the end of the debate on the Garda Síochána on 30 January 2001, the question was raised whether this House has the right to discuss matters that are sub judice in another jurisdiction. The Deputy Speaker ruled that if a case might come before another jurisdiction this Assembly could not discuss it. I find that unacceptable.
It amazes me that any House that has no jurisdiction beyond its own can say that certain cases that are being heard in a court in a foreign country cannot be discussed by it. Madam Deputy Speaker Jane Morrice was to give the House an explanation, but as yet nothing has been forthcoming.

Mr Speaker: I was made aware of this matter. I have some sympathy with the Member’s concerns about the tight ruling. The Assembly’s legal advisers are deliberating on it, and I undertake to give a ruling as soon as possible.

Question17, standing in the name of MrAlexMaskey, has been transferred to the Department of Finance and Personnel and will receive a written response from that Department.

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister
Local Government Review

1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail (a) the timetable for the fundamental review of the council tier of local government and (b) if it will be completed within one year.
(AQO700/00)


As part of the Programme for Government, the Executive are committed to a comprehensive review of all aspects of public administration in Northern Ireland. The Executive intend to review the structures and functions of local government as part of that review. However, as decisions have yet to be taken on the timing of the review, I cannot give an indication of the timing of the specific local government element within it. The Executive have recently been involved in discussions about the details of the review, including the terms of reference, mechanisms for taking the review forward and the timescale.
We will need to have further detailed discussions on these points later this week in order to reach decisions that will enable the review to be progressed without delay. I anticipate being in a position to make a full statement on the details of the review to the Assembly in the coming weeks.


Can the First Minister tell the House if he has made, or if he intends to make, a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the local government elections should not proceed in May?


May I remind the Member of the answer given by the Deputy First Minister to much the same question on 4December 2000. The timing of local government elections is a matter of law, and under current law those elections are due to be held on the third Wednesday of May2001. That will continue to be the position unless the Secretary of State decides to introduce amending legislation.


Can the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister outline what progress has been made to date in preparation for the launch of this review, and, specifically, can the House be assured that the review will incorporate all aspects of public administration including central government and quangos as well as local government?
Moreover, can the First Minister indicate whether the review will last six months or sixyears?


I very much hope it will not last for sixyears. In fact, I am confident that it will not take sixyears. On the other hand, sixmonths is more than a little optimistic. As I said in response to the original question, we are still looking at the timing. We are also looking at the scope, and the Member will recall that I said that we intend to be comprehensive. However, we will not reopen, as it were, the present departmental structures and responsibilities in the review. In effect, it will be a review of all aspects of public administration outside the existing departmental structure. However, it may have implications for the departmental structure because — and this is the really complex part, but also the exciting part of it — we will be looking at the mechanisms used outside the Departments to deliver services in a number of areas. That may involve changes which may mean more functions going to local government, but it may also mean functions coming to Departments. This is intended to be comprehensive.


Why does the First Minister want to hedge the answer to the first question? Is it not a fact, and one which comes from a very leaky Northern Ireland Office down the road, that his party has been advocating to the Secretary of State that the local government elections be postponed? Why does he hide behind the present law, telling us that it is a matter for the Secretary of State, when he is bending his ear to have them postponed?


As I said in my original — [Interruption]


Order.


As I said in response to the original supplementary question, under current law the elections will take place on that date. It is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State if any amending legislation is brought forward. The Member who asked the question is an old enough hand in parliamentary terms to realise the implications of the timing. Indeed, if he was listening as clearly as he claims to have been to things said in my party, and particularly by me, he will know that I have been saying to my party Colleagues for some time that everybody should assume that the elections will go ahead on the named date. [Interruption]


Order.


Furthermore, let me assure the Member that we look forward to the results of those elections, and of the general election. Those results, we are confident, will clearly demonstrate that the people of Northern Ireland support the agreement, support the Assembly and — [Interruption]


Order. If Members are truly interested in asking questions to which they want answers, a degree of order is needed. I am finding it difficult to hear the First Minister’s answers — and I am sitting beside him.


On a point of order —


The Member knows that I do not take points of order during Question Time. I will take his at the end.

Equality Legislation

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to indicate a date for the introduction of legislation proposals designed to consolidate the provisions of current equality legislation.
(AQO697/00)


The Programme for Government contains a commitment to introduce a single equality Bill to the Assembly in 2002. As far as is possible and practical, that Bill will harmonise the existing anti-discrimination law on religious belief or political opinion, race, gender and disability. It will take into account developments in European Union law. The Race Directive, for the first time across Europe, provides comprehensive legislation dealing with discrimination on the grounds of race. The EU Equality Treatment Directive provides a framework for anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation.
Our aim will be to bring forward a Bill that will provide a framework relevant to Northern Ireland. In line with our Programme for Government commitments, we will be consulting widely on the scope and content.


I was given to understand that the Committee of the Centre was to expect some form of consultation document in early spring. Perhaps the Deputy First Minister could advise us if this is still the case, and if there is to be a delay, what is the nature of this delay.
Can he also assure us that when such proposals are brought forward there will be very widespread and full consultation not only with the Committee of the Centre but also with all other interested parties?


Two things will determine the feasibility of having such a consultation document ready for the spring. The first is the capacity to bring forward the consultation document in a proper manner. The second is the extent to which the two EU Directives will need to be incorporated and the implications of that. There will be implications for those Directives in relation to issues already in statute.
I assure the Member that there will be proper consultation, right across the board — in the Assembly, in Government Departments and outside of the political process. That consultation is going to be essential, especially as this body of legislation, when it is finalised, will be in place for a considerable period.


The Deputy First Minister referred to two recent EU Directives on discrimination and race. Will he indicate whether any assessment has yet been made about the implications of those Directives for discrimination law in the North?


The Member is quite correct. The EU Race Directive, which is to be implemented in July2003, will require some amendments to the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order1997. This will include changing slightly the definition of indirect discrimination, extending protection from victimisation to ex-employees and removing the bar on receiving compensation in cases of unintentional, indirect discrimination. The EU Framework Directive will require amendments to be made to the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We will be required to introduce legislation to deal with discrimination in employment on the grounds of age and sexual orientation.

Assembly Executive Committee

3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail (a) when the next meeting of the Assembly Executive will take place and (b) what issues will be raised with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
(AQO667/00)


The next meeting of the Executive will take place on 8February2001. It is important for the good working of the Executive that issues to be raised with, and exchanges between, Ministers remain confidential. Accordingly, it is not our policy to disclose what issues will be raised at Executive meetings.


In view of last week’s legal decision, what new sanctions does he intend to apply to the representatives of armed terrorists in his Executive? Or does dealing with armed terrorists in his Executive have the same elasticity as the word "decommissioning"?


I advise the Member to read the judgement with greater care than he has evidently done so far. If he does, he will see that the submission that the Deputy First Minister and I are under a legal duty to make nominations was rejected. The court accepted that there was a discretion and set out the grounds on which that could be exercised, including the case of persons being considered unsuitable because they had failed, or were not doing enough, to implement parts of the agreement.
On that basis, I anticipate no immediate difficulty for myself. However, I noted with interest the Member’s reference to elasticity. There could scarcely be anything more elastic than his party, which campaigned on an anti-agreement ticket but now sits here in numbers, happy to participate with the people to whom he refers — at whom they are conspicuously not pointing fingers — in this House and its Committees. They are happy to go with them to Brussels, to America, even to Portavogie — [Interruption]


Order. Some of the less impressive habits of other places seem to be affecting Question Time here.


On a serious note, can the First Minister give the Assembly his view on the recent terrible findings in the Redfern Report on the activities of Dr Dick Van Velsen at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool? Can he assure me, in the light of reports on the unacceptable practice of storing organs of deceased children without parental consent, that this has not happened in hospitals in Northern Ireland over the years?


Order. I have to intervene at this point. It is clear — although the question is not complete — that this matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and not the First and Deputy First Ministers, I refer Members to things which were said earlier. I cannot accept this question.


May I finish the question, which I will link to the Executive?


Questions must be relevant, and we must not have irrelevant preambles. The Member may complete his question, which I trust will be relevant.


Are the Executive taking the necessary steps to ensure that no such unforgivable and unauthorised mutilation will ever again take place in any hospital in Northern Ireland?


I am sorry I have to say that my first judgement was correct. This is a matter for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Therefore I cannot accept the question.


As someone with a degree of expertise who has read the judgement — [Interruption]


Order.


Practical expertise.


Modesty forbids him.


Modesty, Mr Speaker, must always give way to truth.
Mr Justice Kerr made it patently clear that the First Minister’s decision to exclude members of Sinn Féin from the North/South Ministerial Council could not be sustained on the basis that breaching one part of the agreement in order to attempt the enforced fulfilment of another was not valid. Will the First Minister enlighten the House as to what he is now going to do, this ploy having failed as a means of forcing Sinn Féin to discharge its obligations in relation to decommissioning?


It is obvious, from the tone and the terms of the question, that the Member has let the wish be father to the thought. I say so as one who has read the judgement — also with a degree of expertise — [Interruption]


Order.


If the Member’s memory were as good as the expertise he claimed, he would realise that in response to the earlier question I was quoting parts of the judgement.


Order. I am afraid that your Speaker is neither a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, and we must therefore proceed to the next question.

Mixed Marriage Association

4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline any meetings with the Northern Ireland Mixed Marriage Association.
(AQO709/00)


The First Minister and I have not met with the Northern Ireland Mixed Marriage Association, nor have we been invited to. However, we understand that staff from the Community Relations Council for Northern Ireland, which funds the association and which is part of our Office, have met with them on five occasions during the past year.
We are conscious of the difficulties faced by people in mixed marriages, be they couples of different religious backgrounds or races. We are determined that people who find themselves under pressure and under attack in their own communities because they belong to a mixed religious or race marriage will have their cases heard fairly and that every attempt will be made to help them.


I trust that the Deputy First Minister and his Colleague will find time for a direct meeting sometime in the next few months. Furthermore, I trust that they will take on board the problems caused for those brought up in mixed relationships by employment categorisation and the need to determine community background.
Will they acknowledge that those difficulties cause increasing problems for the growing number of people from mixed-marriage families? Will they ensure that something is done to end discrimination against the progeny of mixed marriages in the future?


The Member asks a very valid question. There is a factor, but the extent of that factor is something that will need to be scrutinised. We will do everything to ensure that no one is disadvantaged because they are part of a mixed marriage. We will ensure that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland examines this issue too, so that the Member, together with every other Member and ourselves, will be satisfied with it.


I will touch upon something that the Deputy First Minister mentioned in his response to Mr Ford.
Throughout the troubles some people were specifically targeted because they were members of mixed marriages. Has the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minster examined this matter in order to help these people in a positive manner?


Over the last 30 years there was, in parts of Northern Ireland, a distinct trend of subjecting vulnerable people to substantial attacks because they belonged to mixed marriages and because of their housing situation.
With regard to the substance of the question, the Member will be aware — after he and other MLAs in the Larne area received a letter from ourselves — that, following an approach from the Department’s community relations unit, the local district partnership has agreed to convene a preliminary meeting involving partnership members, officials from the community relations unit, Larne Borough Council officials, the Community Relations Council for Northern Ireland and the Mediation Network for Northern Ireland, to discuss steps they can take to improve community relations, particularly in the borough of Larne.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Member and other Members who represent that area for the way in which they have tried to help in a situation where obscene attacks have been taking place. These must be ended. We cannot have any sort of normal or stable society if people are attacked on any basis, be it race, religion, colour or creed.

Civic Forum

5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the costs associated with the establishment and running of the Civic Forum.
(AQO692/00)


The cost of establishing the Civic Forum was approximately £75,000. That covered the cost of filling the post of Civic Forum Chairman, which was widely advertised in order to attract the best possible field of candidates. The establishment costs also included costs to the nominating sectors, which placed advertisements in local newspapers to ensure the widest possible opportunity for everyone in Northern Ireland’s community to apply for membership of the Forum.
In addition, some of the nominating bodies used the services of external consultants to manage their selection processes. The Forum’s running costs, since its establishment in October 1999, have been £110,000. These include the secretariat staff costs and the costs of plenary and other Forum meetings.


Will the First Minister accept that this is a scandalous waste of public money, that this residential home for yes-men, place-women and failed politicians is a drain on the public purse? The money could have bought 40 hip operations or two nursery units, and the Forum has achieved absolutely nothing since its inception.


I am rather disappointed at the response. Consider the wide range of voluntary organisations that are represented in the Forum, either directly or through the various consortia that were formed. The Member, in his comments, has dismissed the churches, sporting bodies, voluntary bodies, the agriculture sector and industry. He has referred in abusive terms to the whole of civil society in Northern Ireland. That is rather sad.


The First Minister will recall that at the opening session of the Assembly on 9 October he said that he was looking forward to the development of a constructive relationship involving the Assembly, the Executive and the Forum. Is he able to give an assessment of how that relationship has developed since that date?


Since its establishment the Forum has been considering its own procedures. We have also, in consultation with the Forum, been considering measures to take forward the body’s role and to enable it to consult on issues that it wishes to focus on and also to respond to requests for its views from the Executive and the Assembly.
As the Member knows, this issue will come to the Assembly tomorrow, when an appropriate motion — needed under the legislation — will be before the Assembly. I hope the Assembly will look favourably upon that motion and we will then be able to move into developing a dialogue with the Forum on social and economic issues. The Assembly will want to treat seriously the views of people who have given voluntarily of their time and expertise.

‘All Truth Is Bitter’ (Report)

6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to comment on the report ‘All Truth Is Bitter’ published by Victim Support Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO).
(AQO671/00)


I commend the Member on the breadth and comprehensive nature of his reading patterns. The report was published following a visit to Northern Ireland by Dr Alex Boraine, vice-chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.
We understand that Dr Boraine has had further involvement with stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland and that a project entitled ‘Healing Through Remembering’ has been developed. We look forward to receiving a report on the project in due course.


I thank the Deputy First Minister for his reply and accept his compliment. However, does he agree that the main recommendation of the report ‘All Truth Is Bitter’ requires further discussions in terms of truth and reconciliation? Can he indicate what provision by way resources and structure is being made to facilitate such discussions? Was there any movement to do that in the Assembly’s December financial review?


There are two parts to the question. The first is what we can learn from the South African experience in terms of the publication by Dr Alex Boraine. It is too early to be definitive in relation to that, but most Members would agree that the opportunity is needed for the vast number of people who have suffered to be able to communicate that experience. That would be a first step.
Detailed proposals for expenditure are being finalised. It is important that the modest allocation of £320,000 — £200,000 from the October monitoring round and £120,000 from the December round — be used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Funding is most likely to be focused on project initiatives that can reach as many victims as possible. Potential areas include initiatives in the health field, capacity building, assisting the four trauma advisory panels, the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund and research on the needs of victims. Later this year, approximately £6·67 million will be available under a specific victims’ measure in the European Peace II programme, and I trust that all groups will take the opportunity of trying to obtain funding from that source.


Does the Deputy First Minister believe that the programme to support genuine victims will be affected by the noises made by the First Minister when he seeks to inform his Colleagues that he may have to seek a fundamental review of the Assembly to a system in the Westminster election hopes?


I think I thank the Member for that question. I am not sure of its import, but its general thrust, I think, was to make the First Minister appear as the victim while I am answering questions about victims. The issue of victims affects the entire community.


Would the support be affected?


Order.


It is a very important issue. I have explained the thinking behind the reaction to the experience in South Africa and the funding arrangements. It is not an issue that should be used as a stick with which to beat anybody.


The time for questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is up.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With your permission, I wish, on behalf of the First Minister and myself, to refer to the debate on a children’s commissioner for Northern Ireland, which took place last Tuesday. As Members will be aware, the First Minister and I were in Paris last Tuesday on official business. Owing to a breakdown in communications at official level in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, junior Ministers were not present to respond to Members at the conclusion of the debate.
We understand the concern expressed by a number of the Members who took part in that debate that Ministers from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were not available to respond to the informed and useful contributions. We apologise for that. The First Minister and I assure the House that steps have been taken to ensure that such a situation will not recur.


On behalf of the House, I acknowledge the initiative of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in declaring that this will not happen again.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned that the Deputy First Minister can make a ministerial statement at Question Time. As it was a ministerial statement, notice should have been given. I do not accept that the Department, with its overloaded personnel, could not have been represented in the House to address an important matter about the children of Northern Ireland, and I do not think that you should be congratulating the Deputy First Minister and thanking him for doing something that should never have been necessary.


Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that I raised that issue during the debate on the children’s commissioner. The Deputy First Minister has not explained why no junior Minister saw fit to come to the Chamber and at least listen to the comments of the Members, even though there were two within the precincts of the House. Mr Haughey came to the Assembly, and spoke for about a minute, excused himself and then left. He did not remain and listen to Members’ comments on this vital issue.


Order. Would that everything could run smoothly, properly and in a seemly way. On this occasion, it is clear that something inappropriate happened. The Deputy First Minister, on behalf of himself, the First Minister and the junior Ministers, tendered an apology to the House and said that procedures would be put into place to ensure that it would not happen again. It is much better that that should have happened than not.
We now find ourselves substantially late for the next round of questions that Members have taken the trouble to put down, and therefore we should move on. The Minister has made an apology, and it would be churlish to refuse it. The Minister is aware of the feeling of the House, and if he wishes to make a further statement he will take the necessary action. We are now some 10 minutes late. I fully accept that that is not the fault of the House, but we should move on.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the individual who raised this matter, I should point out that I asked the Business Committee to look at the situation where Executive Ministers had difficulty attending sittings of the Assembly at any time.


Order. What the Member wishes the Business Committee to look at is a matter for the Business Committee, not for the Floor of the House, and a matter for him to commune with his Whips about. However, if he speaks with them he is likely to find that they do raise these matters with their Colleagues on the Business Committee. It is not appropriate for us to continue on this matter. It has been raised, it is being dealt with, and we must now proceed.


On a point of order, Mr Speaker.


Is it a point of order or merely a continuation of the discussion that is beginning to develop?


It is a point of order. As the proposer of the motion last week, I accept the apology and hope that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will read Hansard and take on board the comments reported therein.

Regional Development
Omagh Throughpass

1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the start date for the final stage of the Omagh throughpass.
(AQO681/00)


Following the publication of the notice of intention to make a direction order and the environmental statement for the proposed Omagh throughpass scheme in June2000, the Roads Service has received a number of objections to and comments on these statutory processes. It will therefore be necessary to hold public inquiries to address the issues that have been raised. If there had been no objections and no need for a public inquiry the scheme could have commenced in 2001. The start date will now be dependent on the progression of the statutory processes and, as in all cases, funding.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)


I must express my disappointment, and the disappointment of many in the Omagh area, at the delay, particularly given the importance of this ingredient of the overall A5provision. Can the Minister assure me that when the objections have been dealt with, funding will still be in place to complete the Omagh throughpass? What other schemes currently in the major works preparation pool may not proceed?


I appreciate Mr Hussey’s concerns about road schemes in his constituency of West Tyrone and in the west of the Province as a whole. The House will be aware that I am continuing to press for additional funds so that each of the schemes in the major works preparation pool can be started, or will be constructed, in the next five years or thereabouts.
At this stage I cannot give a guarantee on the availability of funds. It was for precisely that reason that I raised the issue in Omagh — when I think that the hon Member was present — at a meeting of the Regional Development Committee. That was the first time I was informed about the possibility of a shortfall for major works preparation schemes in years two and three. I am continuing to press for funding so that the Omagh throughpass and the other schemes in the pool can be progressed as quickly as possible.


I understand the disappointment of the Omagh people, and of the elected representatives for the Omagh area, concerning the Omagh throughpass. Can the Minister tell us when work on the Toome bypass will commence?


I congratulate the Member on raising the issue yet again — he has done it on innumerable occasions in the past few weeks, both privately and publicly. I am committed to maintaining sufficient pressure to try to ensure that sufficient funds will be available to progress all the schemes, including the Toome bypass. The hon Member, and the House, will be aware that over the past few weeks we have made further progress in the statutory processes in relation to the Toome bypass. We will make further steady progress along the line, but at the end of the day sufficient funding is required to provide the Toome bypass, the Omagh throughpass and all the other schemes. Without funding we cannot build roads.


I thank the Minister for his answers. Given the fact that phase three of the Omagh throughpass is one of the four schemes that were put in jeopardy some months ago, can he enlighten the House about how discussions are progressing in trying to get some of the Executive programme funds for these schemes? Can he inform the House when the second phase of the Strabane bypass will start and when the Newtownstewart bypass will start? Are the design teams in the Department fully up to speed with these schemes?


I congratulate the Member on his inventiveness, as I do each of the other Members in campaigning for roads in their constituencies. I think that the hon Member will be aware that a number of the schemes he mentioned are being considered at the moment. In the fullness of time, I will make an application for Executive programme funding to try to progress some of the schemes. In relation to the individual schemes that the Member mentioned, I will be investigating the possibilities of their start dates. I hope that he will accept that — for the same reasons as apply to the Toome bypass and the Omagh throughpass — I cannot today give a definitive start date for either the Leckpatrick or Newtownstewart schemes. I will write to the Member when I get a date, and I will update him on the progress being made on both schemes.

Port of Belfast

2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail when he expects to announce a decision on the future of the port of Belfast.
(AQO711/00)


I am currently consulting the Regional Development Committee on the findings of an economic appraisal of the various options for the future of the port of Belfast. Once I have the Committee’s views and have had the opportunity to consider these and to consult, as necessary, with other interested parties, I should be in a better position to indicate when the announcement is likely to be made. I remain keen that this should happen as soon as possible.


I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept that these substantial delays in reaching a decision on the future of the port of Belfast are creating a great deal of uncertainty about investment in that area? Does he also accept that these delays are in danger of bringing this institution and his Department into disrepute among certain sections of Northern Ireland business?


I refute any allegations that the Department has been brought into disrepute although I fully accept the frustration that exists not only in businesses but also among other port users. This is because we have been unable to draw all the strands together to make a definitive statement on the future of the Port of Belfast.
I remain committed to ending that uncertainty. The Department is closer now to that goal than when I responded to the Member on the same issue in the autumn, and I hope to take account of his views, as well as those that other port users have expressed to me. It is paramount that we settle the future of the port of Belfast, and I am committed to doing that as soon as possible.


Does the Minister agree that during this period of uncertainty, many port assets, especially the land at Harland & Wolff, are not being used to the advantage of the people of Belfast? More and more of this land is being released from shipbuilding without any systematic plan for the area. Can he assure the House that, whatever decision is made, lands at Belfast harbour will be put under the control of a more publicly accountable body than that which is responsible at present?


Some of the issues that the hon Member has raised are central to the future of the port of Belfast. The Regional Development Committee and I are determined to protect the assets and land of the port insofar as it is possible and practical. This will be done in a way that is fair and equitable and delivers a positive future for all the people of Northern Ireland. These are some of the reasons for its having taken longer than we originally envisaged. But the Department is determined to protect the land and assets in line with previous commitments made in the Chamber.

Road Footpaths

3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to undertake improvements to footpaths beside roads where there has been a significant build-up in traffic in recent years.
(AQO725/00)


Schemes to provide new and improved footways are considered by my Department’s Road Service for inclusion in minor road works programmes. Footways and other minor works proposals have to compete for the limited funding available. In assessing the priority of footway schemes, consideration is given to a number of factors. These include pedestrian counts; traffic volume; the potential for pedestrian and traffic growth; accident histories; environmental factors such as the presence of schools or churches; the practicality of constructing the schemes; and the cost of schemes and the availablity of funds.


Can the Minister confirm that his Department already possesses the relevant information or has available to him the necessary resources to enable him to make use of pathways that have not been used to their full potential for a long time?


Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not clear which footways the hon Member is referring to. He seems to be talking rather generally.


Minister, I am speaking of the footpath — [Interruption]


We cannot have this sort of tennis match going on. If the Member writes to the Minister, he may be able to clarify things.


On the issue of providing footways, will the Minister also consider the possibility of street lighting in areas where there have been accidents? Between Islandmagee and Whitehead, in my constituency, there has been a significant build-up of traffic and, indeed, fatalities. Sometimes footways themselves are not the answer. Street lighting is needed as well as or, in some cases, instead of footways.


I appreciate the Member’s concern. This matter has previously been raised with me in correspondence and in the House. The Department is reviewing the provision of street lighting in rural areas. The issues raised by the Member will be looked at in considering areas — particularly rural areas — for street lighting. I will ensure that his comments are passed on.


Will the Minister consider assessing the stretch of footpath between Ballymena and the village of Cullybackey against the criteria that he outlined during the course of his first answer? Furthermore, will he undertake to compare that footway with the standards that he has outlined and inform me as to whether it meets those criteria and whether or not that substandard footpath can be upgraded so that pedestrians can be protected in that rural area?


I thank the Member for his repeated representations in respect of this footpath. I will write to him outlining how that footpath stacks up in relation to those criteria.

Senior Citizens: Free Travel

4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to include a companion free travel pass facility in his pending free travel for senior citizens scheme, for the benefit of senior citizens who, for confirmed health reasons, require the assistance of another person when travelling.
(AQO659/00)


I am sympathetic to the needs of people with impaired mobilty, but the resources made available in the Budget do not permit an extension of the concessionary fares scheme beyond the current proposals, which are to introduce free travel for older people, with part funding by district councils. "Companion pass" arrangements similar to those being proposed currently operate in the Republic of Ireland, although the package of benefits for carers in the Republic is different from that available in the United Kingdom. However, in both jurisdictions the benefits are available under social security arrangements and not from Departments responsible for public transport.


I am disappointed, but it is early days for this aspect of the scheme. The Minister referred to other Departments. I have already written to them, asking them to come on board with the scheme, but they absolutely refused. Can the Minister advise of any alternative plans that he has in place to assure our senior citizens that they will get a free travel service if the required 25% input is not forthcoming from district councils?


That question has exercised both myself and my predecessor. We are determined and committed to proceed with the free travel scheme. I have written to councils to establish whether or not they are prepared to involve themselves in this scheme. I hope that there will not be a negative response, given the number of councils that responded positively to the initial consultation. Eleven district councils expressed interest in the scheme, which, at that stage, involved 50% of the funding. Now that that has been reduced to 25%, I hope that a number of councils will respond positively and that we will be able to implement the scheme as quickly as possible.
If they respond negatively we will have to look again at the scheme. I am absolutely committed to having a free travel scheme on public transport for elderly people in Northern Ireland.


I think the Minister said that 11 councils responded. Can he confirm that number? Will he go ahead with the scheme if only a certain number of councils indicate a wish to proceed? If so, can he give us a timescale for implementation of the scheme?


As a result of the approaches and the publicity surrounding this scheme, some district councils have informed me that they are anxious not only to have the scheme but also to bring forward the date on which it will come into operation. I am in consultation with the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Minister of the Environment about interim arrangements involving part funding by district councils from April 2001, which is only two months away. I will write to councils giving details of that scheme.


On the question of someone accompanying a person who is unwell and perhaps not fit to travel too far without company, will the Minister take up the plan that has recently had great success, when a direct negotiation was made between Air France and the people concerned? In such a case Air France would give the ticket at half price to the person — taking the matter out of government but giving a good concession of 50%. Could the Minister not develop that a little when he considers free transport?


I thank the Member for the information in relation to Air France. I have instructed my officials to try to establish other free and concessionary travel arrangements throughout Europe, including the one with Air France. We are currently accumulating a significant amount of information on the schemes available. All the information will help us to develop a better understanding and, we hope, to arrive at a free travel scheme that is not only a good scheme in Northern Ireland but is among the best in Europe.

Roads Infrastructure

5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the steps he is taking to address the underfunding of the road infrastructure and increase standards to an acceptable level.
(AQO668/00)


I am very conscious that I have inherited a significant road maintenance backlog and that existing levels of funding to maintain and improve the road network fall short of what is required. Substantial bids for the roads infrastructure were made last year in the 2000 spending review. While some additional funds were confirmed as a result of that review, the indicative funding baselines for 2002-03 and 2003-04 continue to be significantly under-provided. In this context, therefore, I will shortly submit a bid for additional funding from the Executive programme funds and will continue to bid for the very necessary additional resources in subsequent spending reviews and at every other opportunity. In the meantime I assure the Member that my Department will continue to seek to make the best use of the resources currently available to develop and maintain the roads infrastructure.


I congratulate the Minister on his knowledge of the geography of West Tyrone. It is one thing to mention the Leckpatrick scheme, the Newtownstewart bypass, the Omagh throughpass, the Strabane bypass, the Ballygawley —


Order.


If the funding is not forthcoming, is that an indication that the Executive have a policy of helping the rural community’s rurality, of removing remoteness, of removing peripherality, or of denying the cohesion funds of the Peace II programme? If the funding is not forthcoming, then the Executive will truly have let the Minister down.


I thank the Member for his comments. Obviously, West Tyrone will be mentioned in this context, and there will be campaigns for road schemes right across the constituency. I assure the Member that those road schemes, in common with schemes in other areas, will be progressed by my Department as quickly as possible. We will be applying pressure to ensure that we have sufficient funding to allow each scheme in the major works preparation pool to be advanced as quickly as possible and to allow people across Northern Ireland to benefit from the work carried out.


Will the Minister undertake to provide more resources to Roads Service engineers in Newry and Armagh to address the unacceptable condition of roads, especially minor roads, in my constituency?


The issue of rural roads is one that exercises both me and my Department because of the underfunding that has been prevalent for almost 30 years. Even though the Member asks me to single out Newry and Armagh, I do not think that he would expect me to apply a separate set of criteria to any one constituency, no matter how deserving he argues it is. I will, however, undertake to consider the matter of rural roads, and, obviously, I am going to press for additional funding. I will also explore, within the budget, measures that it may be possible to take to alleviate problems on rural roads.


I welcome the Minister’s reply. The Minister knows that the majority of road users, who pay road tax, expect a half-decent roads network on which to travel. Strangford constituents and Ards Borough Council residents rightly complain that they continue to be neglected. In view of the thousands — [Interruption]


Mr McCarthy, please sit down. When discussing issues such as roads provision, Members should not take the opportunity to highlight specific cases in their constituencies. If they do, we will not be able to get through all the questions. It is an abuse of Question Time to focus on one’s constituency.

Traffic Congestion (Downpatrick)

6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline his plans to alleviate traffic congestion in Downpatrick.
(AQO664/00)


The Roads Service is working with local people, through the Downpatrick Transport Forum, to address traffic congestion and other issues in the town. Particular consideration is being given to a one-way gyratory system, which is being assessed using a computer-based traffic model. It is envisaged that the Roads Service will be in a position to commence a wider public consultation exercise on this proposal in the autumn of this year.


Downpatrick people welcome the fact that the matter is being considered and that the Minister is to visit Downpatrick and Ballynahinch within the next few weeks to look at the problem. Will the Minister accept the urgency of the situation, which is strangling the economic life of Downpatrick and its hinterland?


I can confirm that I hope to be visiting the Downpatrick area within the next few weeks. In relation to the bypass for Downpatrick, referred to by the Member, the Roads Service is currently reassessing all potential major work schemes. This is being carried out with a view to compiling a schedule of schemes that could realistically be started in the next 10 years, taking account of the resources likely to be available. I hope to be able to publish the schedule later this year, and a bypass for Downpatrick will be considered for inclusion in that. However, as all Members will appreciate, the number of places in the schedule is limited, so there will be stiff competition among the many possible worthwhile schemes throughout Northern Ireland.

Traffic Signs: Irish Language

7. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give his assessment of the use of Irish on traffic signs.
(AQO698/00)


The use of Irish on traffic signs in Northern Ireland applies to a small number of tourism signs for attractions that are known and promoted solely by their Irish names.


The Minister may be aware of the issue that prompts the question, namely the case where funding should have been provided to erect bilingual signs in the Ring of Gullion — clearly an area where there is appropriate demand. That was scuppered by Roads Service’s refusal to allow Irish on the road signs. Can the Minister inform us, in line with his Pledge of Office — particularly section (c) — what steps he has taken, or plans to take, to promote the use of the Irish language or to seek to remove, where possible, any restrictions that discourage the development of the Irish language?


I have consulted my Department in relation to multilingual signage and asked for some information on the likely cost of changing existing signs. I am informed that the cost of changing signs throughout Northern Ireland would be several million pounds. Because of that, I have no intention at present of proceeding along that route.


Will the Minister consider introducing road signs similar to those in the Republic of Ireland? These incorporate Irish and English and show the distance in kilometres, in line with European legislation.


As I said, I have asked officials in my Department to consider the possibility of multilingual signage. I have already set out the indications that I am getting. Given the finite nature of resources, of which the hon Member and every other hon Member in this House must be only too well aware, I have no intention, at this stage, of spending very scarce resources on multilingual signage. That money could be much better used in improving the roads infrastructure in Northern Ireland.


Does the Minister agree that it is a greater priority to refurbish existing road signs throughout the Province that have been damaged by the Department of the Environment’s grass-cutting activities, particularly those that have become part of the hedgerows? Can he assure me that, in light of the terrible casualty figures for 2000, maximum effort is being put into the erection of sufficient signage and identification of accident black spots throughout the Province?


I am not sure that that is relevant to the question.


Mr Armstrong was allowed two supplementary questions, yet Michelle Gildernew was denied even one supplementary to the question put by Conor Murphy.


As you know, Mr Maskey, it is not normal to take supplementary questions from Members of the same party.


I draw your attention to the fact that Mr Billy Armstrong asked a supplementary a moment ago even though he had asked a question previously. I think that you should be checking all the conventions.


We are coming very close to the end of the time available, and there are several people who wish to put questions to the Minister.

Road Safety (West Belfast Schools)

8. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail any plans to survey schools in the West Belfast constituency in relation to road safety in the vicinity of the schools.
(AQO732/00)


My Department’s Roads Service surveys traffic conditions at schools as and when necessary. Where appropriate, it arranges for suitable measures to be put in place to improve road safety. As part of this ongoing work, and in response to representations received about road safety issues, officials carry out regular site visits and arrange meetings with schools, local elected representatives and members of the public to discuss problems and liaise on possible solutions.


I acknowledge that officials from the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development have been involved in a series of meetings in West Belfast. These officials have said that they would like to follow through the school-by-school survey in which they have been involved. Can the Minister confirm that his Department will continue to carry out this survey and assess the other schools in West Belfast which have not yet been covered?


I am aware of a recent meeting in the West Belfast area where the issue highlighted in the question was discussed. Roads Service officials who were at the meeting pointed out that a multi-agency approach is often needed when considering road safety matters. This is illustrated by "the three Es" — education, which is given by road safety education officers of the Department of the Environment; enforcement, which is the responsibility of the RUC; and engineering, which is the responsibility of the Roads Service. Of course, my Department remains keen to investigate promptly any specific problems or issues which may be raised with it by assessing what contributions safety engineering might make. This approach is exemplified by the forthcoming meeting between Roads Service officials and the principal of the Holy Child Primary School in West Belfast to discuss traffic management and road safety engineering issues.

Traffic Congestion (Lindsay’s Corner)

9. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline his plans to address traffic congestion during peak periods at the junction of the A57 Ballyclare-to-Templepatrick road and the B59 Ballyrobert-to-Doagh Road, known locally as Lindsay’s Corner.
(AQO677/00)


The Roads Service plans to carry out a minor works scheme to improve the sight lines for motorists emerging onto the main A57 from the direction of Doagh village. Acquisition of the necessary land is being finalised and, subject to these legal formalities being completed, the Roads Service hopes to start work on the site during April 2001.


Can the Minister assure me that he will take immediate steps to bring this project forward, given that some potentially suicidal traffic manoeuvres are being made at this junction? As the Minister admitted in his answer, this junction has a high density of traffic and very heavy vehicles going to and from the Larne ferries. Drivers who want to get onto the main thoroughfare are stopping in the middle of the road on the white lines. I need the Minister’s assurance that he will do everything possible to bring this scheme forward.


I suppose the short answer is yes. The scheme that I mentioned was presented to Newtownabbey Borough Council in May 2000, following consultation in autumn 1999. The acquisition of the land necessary for the scheme took longer than was originally expected, but I hope that the scheme will be in place very shortly.


The time is up. We will move on to questions to the Minister of the Environment.


On a point of order, in relation to your ruling against Mr McCarthy, Mr Deputy Speaker. Outside Question Time, how can Back-Bench Members ask important questions about issues affecting their constituencies?


There is ample opportunity to put that question in writing to the Minister.
My point was that if a question is put with regard to a specific area, we could go round the Assembly, with each person asking about his constituency, and we would be unable to move down the list of questions.


There were 30 seconds left on the clock during which I could have asked my question. On several occasions the time has run out after a Minister has started to give an answer. Why was I not allowed to ask my question?


Time will be lost for the next set of questions if we continue to run late, and that is unfair.


On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not understand why you are taking these points of order now. I was ruled out of order and was told that I had to wait until the end of Question Time. Can you bear with me for a minute or two — [Interruption]


I cannot hear Dr Paisley because of the background noise.


The boss told me when he was in the Chair that I would not be permitted to make my point of order until the end of Question Time. To my surprise he broke his ruling and allowed the Deputy First Minister to make a point of order which was completely out of order according to our rules — it should have been a ministerial statement. Having done that, he then would not let me speak. He said "No, you will have to wait until the end." Then suddenly you, Sir, more gracious, more compassionate, more full of mercy — because you are a Back Bencher and know that you need that facility — took Mr Kennedy’s point and opened it up.
I have no objection; I think that points of order should be taken after questions. However, why should I, having put a question at the beginning, have to wait until the end? Mr Mallon wanted to run away and do other things. That is why he made his point of order and got away with it. I do not want to sit here listening to questions from Mr Maskey, for I am not a bit interested in them. I want to get my question answered.


I must first thank the Member for his kind and gracious words. I understand, Dr Paisley, that you are quite right. I have always understood that points of order are taken on the half-hour at the end of each set of ministerial questions. If I am wrong on that, I will, of course, notify you, but that is my understanding of the way this House has operated in the past and should operate today.


Does that mean that I cannot make my point of order? I was on my feet; I was ruled out of order by the boss and told that I would have to wait until the end to put it.


I can only repeat what I have said already. You can put your point of order on the half-hour or at the end of Question Time.


I have a point of order. I feel mistreated. My question was not about specifics; it was a general question. Had it been about a specific area, I would have been out of order.


Mr McCarthy, your points have been noted.


I do not want to be taking up too much of Dr Paisley’s time here. Will you explain something for me, Mr Deputy Speaker? You denied Ms Gildernew’s request for a supplementary question because you said you were not taking supplementary questions from the same party. However, Mr Billy Armstrong had a question and was able to ask two supplementary questions.


It is not normal for supplementary questions to be taken from the party that posed the original question. If that has happened, I will look at it and respond to you. [Interruption]
Mr Hutchinson, please sit down. I am taking no further points of order.

The Environment
Planning Applications

1. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the progress he is making in clearing the backlog of planning applications.
(AQO704/00)


The Department of the Environment has made good progress in reducing the backlog of planning applications. The latest complete set of statistics is for the end of December 2000, and it indicates that the backlog has been reduced by 11%. This represents significant progress towards the target in the draft Programme for Government to eliminate the backlog by the end of 2002 and represents good use of the additional funding I have been able to allocate to this work. The reduction has been achieved despite a further 4% increase in 1999 in the number of planning applications compared with the previous year.


I welcome the progress that has been made to date. Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made with the backlog of area plans, particularly the Lisburn area plan? Does he not agree that by the time this area plan is published, it may well be redundant, overtaken by the Belfast metropolitan area plan?


I do not want to make excuses, but although the Planning Service actively recruited during 2000, as we enter 2001 it still falls short of its full complement by 54 professional staff. In relation to area plans, the programme set out in the Planning Service’s corporate and business plan provided for full coverage for all of Northern Ireland by 2005. We are on schedule to achieve this target, and I recently launched the Belfast metropolitan area programme, which will cover the Belfast, Carrickfergus, Castlereagh, Lisburn, Newtownabbey and North Down Council areas.


I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response. Does he not agree that in the past developers have used, or have been forced to use, the Planning Appeals Commission as a means of accelerating their developments and that this has worked against the interests of third-party objectors, namely residents, and has often resulted in unnecessary friction between planners, developers and the local community? Can the Minister give an assurance that his Department will encourage local planners to make area decisions, thus avoiding lengthy planning appeals and ensuring that local economic development schemes are not held up unnecessarily?


Hold-ups are annoying, and we would like a fluid planning programme. It should be borne in mind that the determination of planning applications by the Planning Service also requires timely advice from key consultees such as the Roads Service, the Water Service and the Environment and Heritage Service. The Planning Service is actively working with its consultees to see how the consultation processes can be improved, especially by the use of new technology and by sharing information across Departments. We want to expedite all planning applications.


In the Minister’s response to Mr Close, I was pleased to hear him state that the backlog had been reduced by 11%. The Programme for Government commits the Executive to clearing the backlog by December 2002, which is less than 24 months away. Will the Minister give an assurance that this target will be met?


There are no absolutes in this world. The target in the draft Programme for Government is the end of 2002. I expect that this target will be met. However, it will depend on some stability in the number of applications received over the next two years and on the ability of the Planning Service to recruit planners.

Curran Bog

2. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will undertake to designate Curran Bog a special area of conservation (SAC) as it is one of the best bogs remaining outside the current SAC network and larger than any other bog.
(AQO683/00)


I have no plans at present to add CurranBog to the UK’s list of special areas of conservation. Those are selected on the basis that they represent sites of international importance for nature conservation. The UK Government propose to submit a total of 43sites that include active raised bog habitat to the European Commission as candidates for areas of special conservation. Nine of those sites are in Northern Ireland.
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), which advises the UK Government on conservation matters, considers that this number of raised bog sites represents a sufficient proportion of the total resource, includes the most important sites and provides sufficient geographical coverage across the UK. Curran Bog has been designated as an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) and will continue to enjoy the protection that that brings.
As the Member knows, in the next few weeks I expect to publish a consultation paper on measures to strengthen the management and protection of ASSIs.


Some time ago a private firm was given planning permission to excavate at the adjoining Ballynahone Bog. After representations from myself and others, planning permission had to be withdrawn, for which the Department had to pay several hundred thousand pounds in compensation. In light of the Ballynahone protection and the proximity of Curran to Ballynahone, is it not important that Curran is given the special protection that such a designation would entail?


The issue to which DrMcCrea refers was before my time in the Department — it was during direct rule. Therefore I cannot give him a direct answer. All I can say is that Curran Bog has not been selected as a candidate for designation as an area for special conservation because a high proportion of the bog has been cut for peat and also because of its close proximity to Ballynahone, which has a greater proportion of intact bog.


Further to the Minister’s comments, has any thought been given to financial recompense for landowners on an annual basis? I draw his attention to the fact that farmers already receive money for habitat improvement. Perhaps a similar payment could be paid annually to the farmers who own the bog and the surrounding areas.


Just a short answer: we have no plans afoot to do as the Member requests.

Tree Preservation Orders

3. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the number of tree preservation orders made in the Lagan Valley constituency in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
(AQO691/00)


12. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the number of tree preservation orders currently in effect in Northern Ireland.
(AQO693/00)


Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission I will take questions3 and 12 together.
Since 1975 my Department has made a total of 219 tree preservation orders (TPOs), all of which currently remain in effect. My Department does not keep records of tree preservation orders made on a constituency basis. However, from the information available I can say that over the last fiveyears two tree preservation orders were made in the Lisburn area, two in the Ballynahinch area, and one in the Dunmurry area.


I thank the Minister very much for his answer. Does he agree that there have been times when developers have felled trees to make way for new developments without asking for any expert opinion or report? If so, has his Department imposed any penalty on such people?


I am aware of weaknesses in current tree preservation order legislation, particularly with regard to enforcement powers. I am, however, considering proposals to strengthen those powers to ensure that courts, when determining the level of fine, have regard to any financial gain that has resulted from the offence.


Does the Minister share the concern that many people in the Province have about the slash and burn activities of many developers, who move in and destroy mature trees before lodging a planning application? The Minister wrote to me this morning to say that he had plans to update the legislation on TPOs. Can he tell me when will that happen and whether it will be by way of amendments to the planning legislation or by way of free-standing legislation, which the House can debate?


Articles64 and 65 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 give my Department discretionary powers to make tree preservation orders for a number of purposes, including the protection of woodland areas.
A tree preservation order prohibits cutting down, topping or lopping protected trees without the Department’s consent. The proposals that we are putting forward shortly may include provisions to make it easier to use injunctions to prevent tree-cutting operations from continuing, and to make it an automatic requirement to replace trees protected by a tree preservation order that have been removed or destroyed without consent. Trees in a conservation area will also be given the same protection as trees covered by a tree preservation order. These amendments are being considered along with a range of other proposals affecting planning law in Northern Ireland. This legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.


Does the Minister agree that the present legislation is not capable of responding to those individuals and companies wishing to take down or remove trees? Further to his response to Mr Wells, I want to raise the issue of people who cut down trees at the weekend or at night. Can his Department respond quickly to circumstances like that and is it possible to ensure that sufficient officers will be available to carry out the work?


We abhor any trees under a preservation order being cut down — in fact, we abhor it anywhere that it is destroying the landscape. We take action when possible, but it is not always easy to accomplish that. I can assure the Member that we look at the matter pedantically and take action where and when we can. We do not agree with such destruction at all.


In answer to Ms Lewsley, the Minister made the point that he is looking at the current legislation. In answer to Mr Wells, he talked about bringing in legislation at the earliest opportunity. He talks about the earliest opportunity to improve enforcement. Can he not give us a more specific timescale?


It is very difficult to be absolute in these instances, and it would be wrong of me to give a specific time or date. I can assure the House that we will pursue this with utmost haste.

Redevelopment (Belfast): Planning Application 2/2000/0520/F

6. asked the Minister of the Environment if he intends to hold a public inquiry into planning application 2/2000/0520/F in respect of major redevelopment between Royal Avenue and Donegall Street.
(AQO695/00)


This application was designated as a "major" under article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 on the grounds that, if permitted, it would affect the whole of a neighbourhood. This empowers the Department to cause a public local inquiry to be held and to hear representations from all interested parties before a decision is reached. Alternatively, the Department may issue a notice of opinion on this application, in which case the applicant is notified of the decision that the Department is proposing to take and is given the opportunity of a hearing before the Planning Appeals Commission prior to a final decision being issued. This case has raised many issues which need further consideration before a decision can be made on whether a public inquiry is necessary.


Is the Minister aware of the growing frustration with the way that the Planning Service of the Department of the Environment is holding up major developments in Belfast city centre, which has not had any major development for 15 years? Given that some article 31 applications have been with the Department for over two years, will the Minister now give an assurance that article 31 will not be used as a delaying tactic in this case? Also, will he assure the House that this application will not be judged by its likely affect on a scheme not yet submitted, as has been suggested by the Belfast Regeneration Office?


My Department does not endeavour to hold up any applications. There is a lot to go through when such applications come forth. There are four applications which affect Belfast city centre.
This application was received on 25 February 2000 from Dunloe Ewart (Cathedral Way) Ltd. An environmental impact assessment was requested on 8 March 2000. It was advertised on 25 August 2000 and neighbours notified on 24 August 2000. Due to changes in the application description, it was re-advertised on 20 October 2000 and neighbours were re-notified. Eight letters of objection were received following this advertisement process. It was designated as a "major" under article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 on 28 November 2000.
Solicitors acting for Dunloe Ewart (Cathedral Way) informed the Department by letter dated 21 December 2000 that it was their intention to seek a judicial review of the Department’s decision to apply article 31 to this application. As far as I am concerned, this is the only application we have for planning permission in the city centre.

Brownfield and Greenfield Development

7. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the proportion of houses built on (a) brownfield and (b) greenfield sites in each of the last five years, and the optimum target for brownfield development over the next five years.
(AQO726/00)


No historical information is available on the proportion of houses built on brownfield or greenfield sites. The Department for Regional Development, in its response to the recommendations of the independent panel’s public examination of the regional development strategy, considered that an aspirational target of 40% should be set for accommodating new housing on brownfield sites. This target, if it remains in the final regional development strategy, will be reflected by my Department in the provision of future housing and development plans. At that time appropriate systems will have to be put in place to monitor progress against this target.


I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he share my concern that the target set in the Belfast metropolitan plan for development of brownfield sites is 40%, whereas in Great Britain it is being increased to 60%? Does he agree that the proposed 60% greenfield development in that plan is unsustainable?


A lot depends upon the regional development strategy, which we will have to work with. The advantages of brownfield developments include encouragement to reuse buildings — which I think the Member will accept — reduction of dereliction and discouragement of crime. It brings new households to ageing communities, thus adding new children to local schools, and new members to local clubs, churches and community organisations. It reduces the number of people commuting longer distances from the edge of over-expanding towns. It reinforces public transport services in towns. It reduces the consumption of greenfield sites and natural resources. There are great advantages in brownfield sites, and this is what we will be working on. Whatever is built on brownfield sites will help reduce the pressure on greenfield demand.


Does the Minister appreciate that improved protection for areas of special scientific interest — especially around those brownfield sites — is bound up, in the public mind, with interest in the right to roam around those brownfield areas and brownfield sites? Will he comment on that?


It is a difficult question. I am not sure what exactly the Member is getting at. The Planning Service is very pedantic and very objective in dealing with applications. I assure him that nothing is done in a reckless fashion.


I am alarmed with the answer the Minister has given to Ms Hanna’s original question. He has outlined the virtues of brownfield sites, but he is telling the House that 84,000 new homes over the next 20 years are going to be built on greenfield sites. Will he tell the House what he intends to do to get the percentage of houses built on brownfield sites up to the same level as in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he allow higher densities? Will he permit fewer car-parking spaces for houses in the inner city? What other measures does he intend to introduce to increase the number of properties on brownfield sites, which he told this House are advantageous to inner city communities?


I assure the Member that we do not take these things lightly. I cannot give him an absolute answer at this particular stage. However, planning applications are treated objectively and in context of what is happening around them. We will not take any applications in a light manner. These are difficulties which the Department faces at this particular time. They are not easy to solve, but we take decisions in a very objective and planned fashion.

Pollution

8. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the resources available for policing incidents of pollution.
(AQO719/00)


My Department’s Environment and Heritage Service operates a 24-hour response to inland and coastal pollution throughout Northern Ireland. A Freephone pollution hotline allows the public to report pollution incidents. Key staff are on call at all times. The emergency pollution officer heads a team of six staff in Belfast, and he also has available to him the services of 41field staff employed by fisheries boards and district councils across Northern Ireland. These field staff spend approximately 30% of their time on pollution response work.
These resources have increased significantly over recent years. The number of field staff employed by district councils has increased from nine to 29 over the last 10 or soyears. The team of staff at headquarters, who deal specifically with pollution prevention and response work, has increased over the same period from three to six. A further three staff are due to join the team over the next few years in response to new pollution prevention and control responsibilities.
Of course, prevention is better than cure, and I have been significantly increasing the resources available for work in this area and in a number of related areas of activity in the water quality unit in the Environment and Heritage Service. Over the next two financial years, through budget increases and the retention of regulatory receipts, I plan to increase the size of the water quality unit in the Environment and Heritage Service by 33, thereby raising staff levels from 44 to 77, which is a considerable increase. These staff will be involved in a range of existing and new work areas in the unit. This will include activities such as pollution prevention and control, discharge regulation and monitoring of water quality.


I thank the Minister for his extremely good reply. I am delighted to hear that staff numbers will increase from 44 to 77. That is really going to do something. The need for effective policing on the waterways was recently highlighted in my own constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where a considerable amount of farm slurry went into a swallow-hole near the scenic Marble Arch caves at the source of the Cladagh River. This resulted in thousands of fish, and the Erne and Melvin hatchery, being destroyed. It wiped out the brown trout native breeding stock as well.
Does the Minister believe that the present fines are enough to deter potential polluters? Is he satisfied that the penalties are strong enough? Will there be any educational programmes to make farmers and country users more aware of the effect that slurry, in particular, and other substances have on our river life and fish stocks?


The maximum fine for pollution is presently £20,000. In recent years the courts have demonstrated an increasing tendency to impose fines approaching this maximum for polluters found guilty of serious pollution offences. Polluters found guilty in court of causing pollution are liable for compensation costs, including the costs of restocking where a fish kill has occurred and of any clean up. These costs can be large and frequently exceed the fines imposed by the court. At this stage I am satisfied that the penalties available to the courts through both fines and costs are sufficient to act as a deterrent if rigorously used.
With regard to the education process, there are no plans as far as the Department is concerned to educate people. We hope that people show a degree of responsibility rather than irresponsibility.
I am very aware of the pollution incident in the Marble Arch area of Fermanagh, and I deplore it. Farm slurry which was dumped into a hole in the ground contaminated local streams, including one feeding a fish farm which was used primarily to breed native stock for the Erne system. Thousands of fish were killed, and there may be longer term effects on fish fry and breeding stocks. This is a major setback to restocking plans in the Erne system. Therefore I have instructed my officials to pursue their investigation of this incident vigorously. The farmer involved has been identified, and the statutory samples have been taken with a view to prosecution.


I also welcome the increase in public resources poured into this area. Does the Minister agree that this has perhaps been the worst year on record for pollution incidents in our rivers all over Northern Ireland and that the burden falling on staff is huge? Would he consider using some of this resource to help with the training and empowerment of voluntary bailiffs, who could report pollution incidents?
The evidence indicates that given the time from when an incident is discovered until it is reported and a sample is taken the chances are that the source will not be proven. If angling associations and groups of that nature had voluntary bailiffs who had the necessary training to take samples, and who could take those samples as incidents are detected, people could be brought to book more readily.


We would like to get to grips with those people who irresponsibly pollute waterways, wherever they might be. We have no plans at present to teach people or help voluntary groups. We feel that the Department, with the increase of staff I have referred to earlier, should help to ease the situation considerably.
Last year 2,573 pollution incidents were reported to the Environment and Heritage Service. On investigation, 1,699 were confirmed. The difference between reported and confirmed pollution incidents can be accounted for largely by natural phenomena being mistakenly reported as pollution or by the fact that some minor incidents can be so short-lived that, by the time pollution response staff arrive on site, any evidence of pollution has gone.

Environmental Protection Legislation: Consultation

11. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will make it his policy, in liaison with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, to ensure that the farming community will be consulted in relation to new legislation to protect the environment.
(AQO669/00)


My Department enjoys an excellent working relationship with farmers, their representatives and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. In the past, it has consulted successfully with farming bodies on a range of policy proposals. Most recently farming representatives were fully involved in the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Advisory Group, which, last autumn, submitted proposals to me for a Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy. On 23 January I announced in the Assembly my intention to consult on measures to strengthen existing legislation for the protection and management of areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs).
I will ensure that farmers’ representatives, landowners and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, as well as others interested in protecting the environment, are fully consulted. The protection of sites in the future will be best achieved through partnership with landowners and other relevant interests. I will continue to apply the principles of full and open consultation with all interested parties on any further legislative proposals relating to the protection of the environment.


I welcome the Minister’s statement that he enjoys the support and encouragement of the farming community. The difficulties with regard to tree protection orders (TPOs), special areas of conservation (SACs) and those areas that are still designated ASSIs include identification of the locality and protection by fencing and the identification of the rare trees.
Very rare trees may be identified on a map, but developers and the men with the chainsaws normally do not carry maps. Therefore there must be other ways of identifying trees that are to be preserved. This was particularly relevant in the case of Knocknamoe in Omagh, where there were some specialist trees in the estate. What efforts will the Minister make in relation to identification and proper protection?


We will do all we can to ensure that people are aware of the special areas of control, whether they relate to trees, ASSIs, or otherwise.
A consultation paper will review the protection and management of ASSIs, and it will pose questions about the nature of management agreements, the continued payment of compensation, and action to deal with third-party damage. I suggest to Mr Gibson and representatives of the farming and landowning communities, as well as other interested parties, that comments could be given through that arrangement over a three-month period.
We are seeking partnership with all concerned for the protection of any of these species. I ask Mr Gibson, through his channels, to ensure that those issues will be brought forward in the consultation document.

Areas of Special Scientific Interest

14. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline the steps he is taking to give greater protection to areas of special scientific interest.
(AQO675/00)


As I indicated during the debate on 23 January on the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, there is a range of actions under way to improve the protection of special sites. I am grateful for the additional resources made available in the recent Budget for work on environmental protection and nature conservation. Some of that money will be available to support payments to landowners, voluntary bodies and district councils for the management of designated sites. That funding will enhance the Department of the Environment’s ability to encourage good conservation management at the designated sites.
The Department of the Environment is committed to producing a Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy following the recent receipt of the report of the Northern Ireland biodiversity group. Its recommendations include proposals for protecting special sites and priority habitats. My officials will take full account of the group’s recommendations as they prepare that strategy.
The Department will continue to work closely with other Departments whose responsibilities have an important bearing on the natural environment. One important example is integrating conservation into policies for the countryside and the rural environment.
I intend to consult on proposals to strengthen the existing legislation for the protection and management of ASSIs. A consultation paper will be published in the next few weeks.

Mr Speaker: Question17, standing in the name of MrAlexMaskey, has been transferred to the Department of Finance and Personnel and will receive a written response from that Department.

Office of First Minister and Deputy First Minister

Local Government Review

Mr Roger Hutchinson: 1. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail (a) the timetable for the fundamental review of the council tier of local government and (b) if it will be completed within one year.
(AQO700/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: As part of the Programme for Government, the Executive are committed to a comprehensive review of all aspects of public administration in Northern Ireland. The Executive intend to review the structures and functions of local government as part of that review. However, as decisions have yet to be taken on the timing of the review, I cannot give an indication of the timing of the specific local government element within it. The Executive have recently been involved in discussions about the details of the review, including the terms of reference, mechanisms for taking the review forward and the timescale.
We will need to have further detailed discussions on these points later this week in order to reach decisions that will enable the review to be progressed without delay. I anticipate being in a position to make a full statement on the details of the review to the Assembly in the coming weeks.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: Can the First Minister tell the House if he has made, or if he intends to make, a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the local government elections should not proceed in May?

Rt Hon David Trimble: May I remind the Member of the answer given by the Deputy First Minister to much the same question on 4December 2000. The timing of local government elections is a matter of law, and under current law those elections are due to be held on the third Wednesday of May2001. That will continue to be the position unless the Secretary of State decides to introduce amending legislation.

Dr Alasdair McDonnell: Can the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister outline what progress has been made to date in preparation for the launch of this review, and, specifically, can the House be assured that the review will incorporate all aspects of public administration including central government and quangos as well as local government?
Moreover, can the First Minister indicate whether the review will last six months or sixyears?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I very much hope it will not last for sixyears. In fact, I am confident that it will not take sixyears. On the other hand, sixmonths is more than a little optimistic. As I said in response to the original question, we are still looking at the timing. We are also looking at the scope, and the Member will recall that I said that we intend to be comprehensive. However, we will not reopen, as it were, the present departmental structures and responsibilities in the review. In effect, it will be a review of all aspects of public administration outside the existing departmental structure. However, it may have implications for the departmental structure because — and this is the really complex part, but also the exciting part of it — we will be looking at the mechanisms used outside the Departments to deliver services in a number of areas. That may involve changes which may mean more functions going to local government, but it may also mean functions coming to Departments. This is intended to be comprehensive.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Why does the First Minister want to hedge the answer to the first question? Is it not a fact, and one which comes from a very leaky Northern Ireland Office down the road, that his party has been advocating to the Secretary of State that the local government elections be postponed? Why does he hide behind the present law, telling us that it is a matter for the Secretary of State, when he is bending his ear to have them postponed?

Rt Hon David Trimble: As I said in my original — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: As I said in response to the original supplementary question, under current law the elections will take place on that date. It is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State if any amending legislation is brought forward. The Member who asked the question is an old enough hand in parliamentary terms to realise the implications of the timing. Indeed, if he was listening as clearly as he claims to have been to things said in my party, and particularly by me, he will know that I have been saying to my party Colleagues for some time that everybody should assume that the elections will go ahead on the named date. [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: Furthermore, let me assure the Member that we look forward to the results of those elections, and of the general election. Those results, we are confident, will clearly demonstrate that the people of Northern Ireland support the agreement, support the Assembly and — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. If Members are truly interested in asking questions to which they want answers, a degree of order is needed. I am finding it difficult to hear the First Minister’s answers — and I am sitting beside him.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: On a point of order —

Mr Speaker: The Member knows that I do not take points of order during Question Time. I will take his at the end.

Equality Legislation

Mr Conor Murphy: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to indicate a date for the introduction of legislation proposals designed to consolidate the provisions of current equality legislation.
(AQO697/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Programme for Government contains a commitment to introduce a single equality Bill to the Assembly in 2002. As far as is possible and practical, that Bill will harmonise the existing anti-discrimination law on religious belief or political opinion, race, gender and disability. It will take into account developments in European Union law. The Race Directive, for the first time across Europe, provides comprehensive legislation dealing with discrimination on the grounds of race. The EU Equality Treatment Directive provides a framework for anti-discrimination legislation on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation.
Our aim will be to bring forward a Bill that will provide a framework relevant to Northern Ireland. In line with our Programme for Government commitments, we will be consulting widely on the scope and content.

Mr Conor Murphy: I was given to understand that the Committee of the Centre was to expect some form of consultation document in early spring. Perhaps the Deputy First Minister could advise us if this is still the case, and if there is to be a delay, what is the nature of this delay.
Can he also assure us that when such proposals are brought forward there will be very widespread and full consultation not only with the Committee of the Centre but also with all other interested parties?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Two things will determine the feasibility of having such a consultation document ready for the spring. The first is the capacity to bring forward the consultation document in a proper manner. The second is the extent to which the two EU Directives will need to be incorporated and the implications of that. There will be implications for those Directives in relation to issues already in statute.
I assure the Member that there will be proper consultation, right across the board — in the Assembly, in Government Departments and outside of the political process. That consultation is going to be essential, especially as this body of legislation, when it is finalised, will be in place for a considerable period.

Mr Alex Attwood: The Deputy First Minister referred to two recent EU Directives on discrimination and race. Will he indicate whether any assessment has yet been made about the implications of those Directives for discrimination law in the North?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member is quite correct. The EU Race Directive, which is to be implemented in July2003, will require some amendments to the Race Relations (Northern Ireland) Order1997. This will include changing slightly the definition of indirect discrimination, extending protection from victimisation to ex-employees and removing the bar on receiving compensation in cases of unintentional, indirect discrimination. The EU Framework Directive will require amendments to be made to the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998 and the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. We will be required to introduce legislation to deal with discrimination in employment on the grounds of age and sexual orientation.

Assembly Executive Committee

Mr Oliver Gibson: 3. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail (a) when the next meeting of the Assembly Executive will take place and (b) what issues will be raised with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety.
(AQO667/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The next meeting of the Executive will take place on 8February2001. It is important for the good working of the Executive that issues to be raised with, and exchanges between, Ministers remain confidential. Accordingly, it is not our policy to disclose what issues will be raised at Executive meetings.

Mr Oliver Gibson: In view of last week’s legal decision, what new sanctions does he intend to apply to the representatives of armed terrorists in his Executive? Or does dealing with armed terrorists in his Executive have the same elasticity as the word "decommissioning"?

Rt Hon David Trimble: I advise the Member to read the judgement with greater care than he has evidently done so far. If he does, he will see that the submission that the Deputy First Minister and I are under a legal duty to make nominations was rejected. The court accepted that there was a discretion and set out the grounds on which that could be exercised, including the case of persons being considered unsuitable because they had failed, or were not doing enough, to implement parts of the agreement.
On that basis, I anticipate no immediate difficulty for myself. However, I noted with interest the Member’s reference to elasticity. There could scarcely be anything more elastic than his party, which campaigned on an anti-agreement ticket but now sits here in numbers, happy to participate with the people to whom he refers — at whom they are conspicuously not pointing fingers — in this House and its Committees. They are happy to go with them to Brussels, to America, even to Portavogie — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order. Some of the less impressive habits of other places seem to be affecting Question Time here.

Rev Robert Coulter: On a serious note, can the First Minister give the Assembly his view on the recent terrible findings in the Redfern Report on the activities of Dr Dick Van Velsen at Alder Hey Hospital in Liverpool? Can he assure me, in the light of reports on the unacceptable practice of storing organs of deceased children without parental consent, that this has not happened in hospitals in Northern Ireland over the years?

Mr Speaker: Order. I have to intervene at this point. It is clear — although the question is not complete — that this matter is the responsibility of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and not the First and Deputy First Ministers, I refer Members to things which were said earlier. I cannot accept this question.

Rev Robert Coulter: May I finish the question, which I will link to the Executive?

Mr Speaker: Questions must be relevant, and we must not have irrelevant preambles. The Member may complete his question, which I trust will be relevant.

Rev Robert Coulter: Are the Executive taking the necessary steps to ensure that no such unforgivable and unauthorised mutilation will ever again take place in any hospital in Northern Ireland?

Mr Speaker: I am sorry I have to say that my first judgement was correct. This is a matter for the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. Therefore I cannot accept the question.

Mr Robert McCartney: As someone with a degree of expertise who has read the judgement — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Robert McCartney: Practical expertise.

Mr Derek Hussey: Modesty forbids him.

Mr Robert McCartney: Modesty, Mr Speaker, must always give way to truth.
Mr Justice Kerr made it patently clear that the First Minister’s decision to exclude members of Sinn Féin from the North/South Ministerial Council could not be sustained on the basis that breaching one part of the agreement in order to attempt the enforced fulfilment of another was not valid. Will the First Minister enlighten the House as to what he is now going to do, this ploy having failed as a means of forcing Sinn Féin to discharge its obligations in relation to decommissioning?

Rt Hon David Trimble: It is obvious, from the tone and the terms of the question, that the Member has let the wish be father to the thought. I say so as one who has read the judgement — also with a degree of expertise — [Interruption]

Mr Speaker: Order.

Rt Hon David Trimble: If the Member’s memory were as good as the expertise he claimed, he would realise that in response to the earlier question I was quoting parts of the judgement.

Mr Speaker: Order. I am afraid that your Speaker is neither a lawyer nor the son of a lawyer, and we must therefore proceed to the next question.

Mixed Marriage Association

Mr David Ford: 4. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to outline any meetings with the Northern Ireland Mixed Marriage Association.
(AQO709/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: The First Minister and I have not met with the Northern Ireland Mixed Marriage Association, nor have we been invited to. However, we understand that staff from the Community Relations Council for Northern Ireland, which funds the association and which is part of our Office, have met with them on five occasions during the past year.
We are conscious of the difficulties faced by people in mixed marriages, be they couples of different religious backgrounds or races. We are determined that people who find themselves under pressure and under attack in their own communities because they belong to a mixed religious or race marriage will have their cases heard fairly and that every attempt will be made to help them.

Mr David Ford: I trust that the Deputy First Minister and his Colleague will find time for a direct meeting sometime in the next few months. Furthermore, I trust that they will take on board the problems caused for those brought up in mixed relationships by employment categorisation and the need to determine community background.
Will they acknowledge that those difficulties cause increasing problems for the growing number of people from mixed-marriage families? Will they ensure that something is done to end discrimination against the progeny of mixed marriages in the future?

Mr Seamus Mallon: The Member asks a very valid question. There is a factor, but the extent of that factor is something that will need to be scrutinised. We will do everything to ensure that no one is disadvantaged because they are part of a mixed marriage. We will ensure that the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland examines this issue too, so that the Member, together with every other Member and ourselves, will be satisfied with it.

Mr Danny O'Connor: I will touch upon something that the Deputy First Minister mentioned in his response to Mr Ford.
Throughout the troubles some people were specifically targeted because they were members of mixed marriages. Has the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minster examined this matter in order to help these people in a positive manner?

Mr Seamus Mallon: Over the last 30 years there was, in parts of Northern Ireland, a distinct trend of subjecting vulnerable people to substantial attacks because they belonged to mixed marriages and because of their housing situation.
With regard to the substance of the question, the Member will be aware — after he and other MLAs in the Larne area received a letter from ourselves — that, following an approach from the Department’s community relations unit, the local district partnership has agreed to convene a preliminary meeting involving partnership members, officials from the community relations unit, Larne Borough Council officials, the Community Relations Council for Northern Ireland and the Mediation Network for Northern Ireland, to discuss steps they can take to improve community relations, particularly in the borough of Larne.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Member and other Members who represent that area for the way in which they have tried to help in a situation where obscene attacks have been taking place. These must be ended. We cannot have any sort of normal or stable society if people are attacked on any basis, be it race, religion, colour or creed.

Civic Forum

Mr Jim Wells: 5. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to detail the costs associated with the establishment and running of the Civic Forum.
(AQO692/00)

Rt Hon David Trimble: The cost of establishing the Civic Forum was approximately £75,000. That covered the cost of filling the post of Civic Forum Chairman, which was widely advertised in order to attract the best possible field of candidates. The establishment costs also included costs to the nominating sectors, which placed advertisements in local newspapers to ensure the widest possible opportunity for everyone in Northern Ireland’s community to apply for membership of the Forum.
In addition, some of the nominating bodies used the services of external consultants to manage their selection processes. The Forum’s running costs, since its establishment in October 1999, have been £110,000. These include the secretariat staff costs and the costs of plenary and other Forum meetings.

Mr Jim Wells: Will the First Minister accept that this is a scandalous waste of public money, that this residential home for yes-men, place-women and failed politicians is a drain on the public purse? The money could have bought 40 hip operations or two nursery units, and the Forum has achieved absolutely nothing since its inception.

Rt Hon David Trimble: I am rather disappointed at the response. Consider the wide range of voluntary organisations that are represented in the Forum, either directly or through the various consortia that were formed. The Member, in his comments, has dismissed the churches, sporting bodies, voluntary bodies, the agriculture sector and industry. He has referred in abusive terms to the whole of civil society in Northern Ireland. That is rather sad.

Mr David McClarty: The First Minister will recall that at the opening session of the Assembly on 9 October he said that he was looking forward to the development of a constructive relationship involving the Assembly, the Executive and the Forum. Is he able to give an assessment of how that relationship has developed since that date?

Rt Hon David Trimble: Since its establishment the Forum has been considering its own procedures. We have also, in consultation with the Forum, been considering measures to take forward the body’s role and to enable it to consult on issues that it wishes to focus on and also to respond to requests for its views from the Executive and the Assembly.
As the Member knows, this issue will come to the Assembly tomorrow, when an appropriate motion — needed under the legislation — will be before the Assembly. I hope the Assembly will look favourably upon that motion and we will then be able to move into developing a dialogue with the Forum on social and economic issues. The Assembly will want to treat seriously the views of people who have given voluntarily of their time and expertise.

‘All Truth Is Bitter’ (Report)

Mr Eddie McGrady: 6. asked the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister to comment on the report ‘All Truth Is Bitter’ published by Victim Support Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO).
(AQO671/00)

Mr Seamus Mallon: I commend the Member on the breadth and comprehensive nature of his reading patterns. The report was published following a visit to Northern Ireland by Dr Alex Boraine, vice-chairperson of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in South Africa.
We understand that Dr Boraine has had further involvement with stakeholder groups in Northern Ireland and that a project entitled ‘Healing Through Remembering’ has been developed. We look forward to receiving a report on the project in due course.

Mr Eddie McGrady: I thank the Deputy First Minister for his reply and accept his compliment. However, does he agree that the main recommendation of the report ‘All Truth Is Bitter’ requires further discussions in terms of truth and reconciliation? Can he indicate what provision by way resources and structure is being made to facilitate such discussions? Was there any movement to do that in the Assembly’s December financial review?

Mr Seamus Mallon: There are two parts to the question. The first is what we can learn from the South African experience in terms of the publication by Dr Alex Boraine. It is too early to be definitive in relation to that, but most Members would agree that the opportunity is needed for the vast number of people who have suffered to be able to communicate that experience. That would be a first step.
Detailed proposals for expenditure are being finalised. It is important that the modest allocation of £320,000 — £200,000 from the October monitoring round and £120,000 from the December round — be used as efficiently and effectively as possible. Funding is most likely to be focused on project initiatives that can reach as many victims as possible. Potential areas include initiatives in the health field, capacity building, assisting the four trauma advisory panels, the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund and research on the needs of victims. Later this year, approximately £6·67 million will be available under a specific victims’ measure in the European Peace II programme, and I trust that all groups will take the opportunity of trying to obtain funding from that source.

Rev William McCrea: Does the Deputy First Minister believe that the programme to support genuine victims will be affected by the noises made by the First Minister when he seeks to inform his Colleagues that he may have to seek a fundamental review of the Assembly to a system in the Westminster election hopes?

Mr Seamus Mallon: I think I thank the Member for that question. I am not sure of its import, but its general thrust, I think, was to make the First Minister appear as the victim while I am answering questions about victims. The issue of victims affects the entire community.

Rev William McCrea: Would the support be affected?

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Seamus Mallon: It is a very important issue. I have explained the thinking behind the reaction to the experience in South Africa and the funding arrangements. It is not an issue that should be used as a stick with which to beat anybody.

Mr Speaker: The time for questions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister is up.

Mr Seamus Mallon: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. With your permission, I wish, on behalf of the First Minister and myself, to refer to the debate on a children’s commissioner for Northern Ireland, which took place last Tuesday. As Members will be aware, the First Minister and I were in Paris last Tuesday on official business. Owing to a breakdown in communications at official level in the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, junior Ministers were not present to respond to Members at the conclusion of the debate.
We understand the concern expressed by a number of the Members who took part in that debate that Ministers from the Office of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister were not available to respond to the informed and useful contributions. We apologise for that. The First Minister and I assure the House that steps have been taken to ensure that such a situation will not recur.

Mr Speaker: On behalf of the House, I acknowledge the initiative of the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister in declaring that this will not happen again.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am concerned that the Deputy First Minister can make a ministerial statement at Question Time. As it was a ministerial statement, notice should have been given. I do not accept that the Department, with its overloaded personnel, could not have been represented in the House to address an important matter about the children of Northern Ireland, and I do not think that you should be congratulating the Deputy First Minister and thanking him for doing something that should never have been necessary.

Mr Jim Wells: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. You will recall that I raised that issue during the debate on the children’s commissioner. The Deputy First Minister has not explained why no junior Minister saw fit to come to the Chamber and at least listen to the comments of the Members, even though there were two within the precincts of the House. Mr Haughey came to the Assembly, and spoke for about a minute, excused himself and then left. He did not remain and listen to Members’ comments on this vital issue.

Mr Speaker: Order. Would that everything could run smoothly, properly and in a seemly way. On this occasion, it is clear that something inappropriate happened. The Deputy First Minister, on behalf of himself, the First Minister and the junior Ministers, tendered an apology to the House and said that procedures would be put into place to ensure that it would not happen again. It is much better that that should have happened than not.
We now find ourselves substantially late for the next round of questions that Members have taken the trouble to put down, and therefore we should move on. The Minister has made an apology, and it would be churlish to refuse it. The Minister is aware of the feeling of the House, and if he wishes to make a further statement he will take the necessary action. We are now some 10 minutes late. I fully accept that that is not the fault of the House, but we should move on.

Mr Edwin Poots: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As the individual who raised this matter, I should point out that I asked the Business Committee to look at the situation where Executive Ministers had difficulty attending sittings of the Assembly at any time.

Mr Speaker: Order. What the Member wishes the Business Committee to look at is a matter for the Business Committee, not for the Floor of the House, and a matter for him to commune with his Whips about. However, if he speaks with them he is likely to find that they do raise these matters with their Colleagues on the Business Committee. It is not appropriate for us to continue on this matter. It has been raised, it is being dealt with, and we must now proceed.

Mrs Eileen Bell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: Is it a point of order or merely a continuation of the discussion that is beginning to develop?

Mrs Eileen Bell: It is a point of order. As the proposer of the motion last week, I accept the apology and hope that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will read Hansard and take on board the comments reported therein.

Regional Development

Omagh Throughpass

Mr Derek Hussey: 1. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the start date for the final stage of the Omagh throughpass.
(AQO681/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Following the publication of the notice of intention to make a direction order and the environmental statement for the proposed Omagh throughpass scheme in June2000, the Roads Service has received a number of objections to and comments on these statutory processes. It will therefore be necessary to hold public inquiries to address the issues that have been raised. If there had been no objections and no need for a public inquiry the scheme could have commenced in 2001. The start date will now be dependent on the progression of the statutory processes and, as in all cases, funding.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McClelland] in the Chair)

Mr Derek Hussey: I must express my disappointment, and the disappointment of many in the Omagh area, at the delay, particularly given the importance of this ingredient of the overall A5provision. Can the Minister assure me that when the objections have been dealt with, funding will still be in place to complete the Omagh throughpass? What other schemes currently in the major works preparation pool may not proceed?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I appreciate Mr Hussey’s concerns about road schemes in his constituency of West Tyrone and in the west of the Province as a whole. The House will be aware that I am continuing to press for additional funds so that each of the schemes in the major works preparation pool can be started, or will be constructed, in the next five years or thereabouts.
At this stage I cannot give a guarantee on the availability of funds. It was for precisely that reason that I raised the issue in Omagh — when I think that the hon Member was present — at a meeting of the Regional Development Committee. That was the first time I was informed about the possibility of a shortfall for major works preparation schemes in years two and three. I am continuing to press for funding so that the Omagh throughpass and the other schemes in the pool can be progressed as quickly as possible.

Rev William McCrea: I understand the disappointment of the Omagh people, and of the elected representatives for the Omagh area, concerning the Omagh throughpass. Can the Minister tell us when work on the Toome bypass will commence?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I congratulate the Member on raising the issue yet again — he has done it on innumerable occasions in the past few weeks, both privately and publicly. I am committed to maintaining sufficient pressure to try to ensure that sufficient funds will be available to progress all the schemes, including the Toome bypass. The hon Member, and the House, will be aware that over the past few weeks we have made further progress in the statutory processes in relation to the Toome bypass. We will make further steady progress along the line, but at the end of the day sufficient funding is required to provide the Toome bypass, the Omagh throughpass and all the other schemes. Without funding we cannot build roads.

Mr Joe Byrne: I thank the Minister for his answers. Given the fact that phase three of the Omagh throughpass is one of the four schemes that were put in jeopardy some months ago, can he enlighten the House about how discussions are progressing in trying to get some of the Executive programme funds for these schemes? Can he inform the House when the second phase of the Strabane bypass will start and when the Newtownstewart bypass will start? Are the design teams in the Department fully up to speed with these schemes?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I congratulate the Member on his inventiveness, as I do each of the other Members in campaigning for roads in their constituencies. I think that the hon Member will be aware that a number of the schemes he mentioned are being considered at the moment. In the fullness of time, I will make an application for Executive programme funding to try to progress some of the schemes. In relation to the individual schemes that the Member mentioned, I will be investigating the possibilities of their start dates. I hope that he will accept that — for the same reasons as apply to the Toome bypass and the Omagh throughpass — I cannot today give a definitive start date for either the Leckpatrick or Newtownstewart schemes. I will write to the Member when I get a date, and I will update him on the progress being made on both schemes.

Port of Belfast

Mr Sean Neeson: 2. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail when he expects to announce a decision on the future of the port of Belfast.
(AQO711/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am currently consulting the Regional Development Committee on the findings of an economic appraisal of the various options for the future of the port of Belfast. Once I have the Committee’s views and have had the opportunity to consider these and to consult, as necessary, with other interested parties, I should be in a better position to indicate when the announcement is likely to be made. I remain keen that this should happen as soon as possible.

Mr Sean Neeson: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he accept that these substantial delays in reaching a decision on the future of the port of Belfast are creating a great deal of uncertainty about investment in that area? Does he also accept that these delays are in danger of bringing this institution and his Department into disrepute among certain sections of Northern Ireland business?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I refute any allegations that the Department has been brought into disrepute although I fully accept the frustration that exists not only in businesses but also among other port users. This is because we have been unable to draw all the strands together to make a definitive statement on the future of the Port of Belfast.
I remain committed to ending that uncertainty. The Department is closer now to that goal than when I responded to the Member on the same issue in the autumn, and I hope to take account of his views, as well as those that other port users have expressed to me. It is paramount that we settle the future of the port of Belfast, and I am committed to doing that as soon as possible.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Does the Minister agree that during this period of uncertainty, many port assets, especially the land at Harland & Wolff, are not being used to the advantage of the people of Belfast? More and more of this land is being released from shipbuilding without any systematic plan for the area. Can he assure the House that, whatever decision is made, lands at Belfast harbour will be put under the control of a more publicly accountable body than that which is responsible at present?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Some of the issues that the hon Member has raised are central to the future of the port of Belfast. The Regional Development Committee and I are determined to protect the assets and land of the port insofar as it is possible and practical. This will be done in a way that is fair and equitable and delivers a positive future for all the people of Northern Ireland. These are some of the reasons for its having taken longer than we originally envisaged. But the Department is determined to protect the land and assets in line with previous commitments made in the Chamber.

Road Footpaths

Mr Billy Armstrong: 3. asked the Minister for Regional Development to undertake improvements to footpaths beside roads where there has been a significant build-up in traffic in recent years.
(AQO725/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: Schemes to provide new and improved footways are considered by my Department’s Road Service for inclusion in minor road works programmes. Footways and other minor works proposals have to compete for the limited funding available. In assessing the priority of footway schemes, consideration is given to a number of factors. These include pedestrian counts; traffic volume; the potential for pedestrian and traffic growth; accident histories; environmental factors such as the presence of schools or churches; the practicality of constructing the schemes; and the cost of schemes and the availablity of funds.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Can the Minister confirm that his Department already possesses the relevant information or has available to him the necessary resources to enable him to make use of pathways that have not been used to their full potential for a long time?

Mr Gregory Campbell: Mr Deputy Speaker, I am not clear which footways the hon Member is referring to. He seems to be talking rather generally.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Minister, I am speaking of the footpath — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: We cannot have this sort of tennis match going on. If the Member writes to the Minister, he may be able to clarify things.

Mr Danny O'Connor: On the issue of providing footways, will the Minister also consider the possibility of street lighting in areas where there have been accidents? Between Islandmagee and Whitehead, in my constituency, there has been a significant build-up of traffic and, indeed, fatalities. Sometimes footways themselves are not the answer. Street lighting is needed as well as or, in some cases, instead of footways.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I appreciate the Member’s concern. This matter has previously been raised with me in correspondence and in the House. The Department is reviewing the provision of street lighting in rural areas. The issues raised by the Member will be looked at in considering areas — particularly rural areas — for street lighting. I will ensure that his comments are passed on.

Mr Ian Paisley Jnr: Will the Minister consider assessing the stretch of footpath between Ballymena and the village of Cullybackey against the criteria that he outlined during the course of his first answer? Furthermore, will he undertake to compare that footway with the standards that he has outlined and inform me as to whether it meets those criteria and whether or not that substandard footpath can be upgraded so that pedestrians can be protected in that rural area?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his repeated representations in respect of this footpath. I will write to him outlining how that footpath stacks up in relation to those criteria.

Senior Citizens: Free Travel

Mr P J Bradley: 4. asked the Minister for Regional Development to include a companion free travel pass facility in his pending free travel for senior citizens scheme, for the benefit of senior citizens who, for confirmed health reasons, require the assistance of another person when travelling.
(AQO659/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am sympathetic to the needs of people with impaired mobilty, but the resources made available in the Budget do not permit an extension of the concessionary fares scheme beyond the current proposals, which are to introduce free travel for older people, with part funding by district councils. "Companion pass" arrangements similar to those being proposed currently operate in the Republic of Ireland, although the package of benefits for carers in the Republic is different from that available in the United Kingdom. However, in both jurisdictions the benefits are available under social security arrangements and not from Departments responsible for public transport.

Mr P J Bradley: I am disappointed, but it is early days for this aspect of the scheme. The Minister referred to other Departments. I have already written to them, asking them to come on board with the scheme, but they absolutely refused. Can the Minister advise of any alternative plans that he has in place to assure our senior citizens that they will get a free travel service if the required 25% input is not forthcoming from district councils?

Mr Gregory Campbell: That question has exercised both myself and my predecessor. We are determined and committed to proceed with the free travel scheme. I have written to councils to establish whether or not they are prepared to involve themselves in this scheme. I hope that there will not be a negative response, given the number of councils that responded positively to the initial consultation. Eleven district councils expressed interest in the scheme, which, at that stage, involved 50% of the funding. Now that that has been reduced to 25%, I hope that a number of councils will respond positively and that we will be able to implement the scheme as quickly as possible.
If they respond negatively we will have to look again at the scheme. I am absolutely committed to having a free travel scheme on public transport for elderly people in Northern Ireland.

Mr Jim Shannon: I think the Minister said that 11 councils responded. Can he confirm that number? Will he go ahead with the scheme if only a certain number of councils indicate a wish to proceed? If so, can he give us a timescale for implementation of the scheme?

Mr Gregory Campbell: As a result of the approaches and the publicity surrounding this scheme, some district councils have informed me that they are anxious not only to have the scheme but also to bring forward the date on which it will come into operation. I am in consultation with the Minister of Finance and Personnel and the Minister of the Environment about interim arrangements involving part funding by district councils from April 2001, which is only two months away. I will write to councils giving details of that scheme.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On the question of someone accompanying a person who is unwell and perhaps not fit to travel too far without company, will the Minister take up the plan that has recently had great success, when a direct negotiation was made between Air France and the people concerned? In such a case Air France would give the ticket at half price to the person — taking the matter out of government but giving a good concession of 50%. Could the Minister not develop that a little when he considers free transport?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for the information in relation to Air France. I have instructed my officials to try to establish other free and concessionary travel arrangements throughout Europe, including the one with Air France. We are currently accumulating a significant amount of information on the schemes available. All the information will help us to develop a better understanding and, we hope, to arrive at a free travel scheme that is not only a good scheme in Northern Ireland but is among the best in Europe.

Roads Infrastructure

Mr Oliver Gibson: 5. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline the steps he is taking to address the underfunding of the road infrastructure and increase standards to an acceptable level.
(AQO668/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am very conscious that I have inherited a significant road maintenance backlog and that existing levels of funding to maintain and improve the road network fall short of what is required. Substantial bids for the roads infrastructure were made last year in the 2000 spending review. While some additional funds were confirmed as a result of that review, the indicative funding baselines for 2002-03 and 2003-04 continue to be significantly under-provided. In this context, therefore, I will shortly submit a bid for additional funding from the Executive programme funds and will continue to bid for the very necessary additional resources in subsequent spending reviews and at every other opportunity. In the meantime I assure the Member that my Department will continue to seek to make the best use of the resources currently available to develop and maintain the roads infrastructure.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I congratulate the Minister on his knowledge of the geography of West Tyrone. It is one thing to mention the Leckpatrick scheme, the Newtownstewart bypass, the Omagh throughpass, the Strabane bypass, the Ballygawley —

Mr Speaker: Order.

Mr Oliver Gibson: If the funding is not forthcoming, is that an indication that the Executive have a policy of helping the rural community’s rurality, of removing remoteness, of removing peripherality, or of denying the cohesion funds of the Peace II programme? If the funding is not forthcoming, then the Executive will truly have let the Minister down.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I thank the Member for his comments. Obviously, West Tyrone will be mentioned in this context, and there will be campaigns for road schemes right across the constituency. I assure the Member that those road schemes, in common with schemes in other areas, will be progressed by my Department as quickly as possible. We will be applying pressure to ensure that we have sufficient funding to allow each scheme in the major works preparation pool to be advanced as quickly as possible and to allow people across Northern Ireland to benefit from the work carried out.

Mr Danny Kennedy: Will the Minister undertake to provide more resources to Roads Service engineers in Newry and Armagh to address the unacceptable condition of roads, especially minor roads, in my constituency?

Mr Gregory Campbell: The issue of rural roads is one that exercises both me and my Department because of the underfunding that has been prevalent for almost 30 years. Even though the Member asks me to single out Newry and Armagh, I do not think that he would expect me to apply a separate set of criteria to any one constituency, no matter how deserving he argues it is. I will, however, undertake to consider the matter of rural roads, and, obviously, I am going to press for additional funding. I will also explore, within the budget, measures that it may be possible to take to alleviate problems on rural roads.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I welcome the Minister’s reply. The Minister knows that the majority of road users, who pay road tax, expect a half-decent roads network on which to travel. Strangford constituents and Ards Borough Council residents rightly complain that they continue to be neglected. In view of the thousands — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr McCarthy, please sit down. When discussing issues such as roads provision, Members should not take the opportunity to highlight specific cases in their constituencies. If they do, we will not be able to get through all the questions. It is an abuse of Question Time to focus on one’s constituency.

Traffic Congestion (Downpatrick)

Mr Jim Wells: 6. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline his plans to alleviate traffic congestion in Downpatrick.
(AQO664/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Roads Service is working with local people, through the Downpatrick Transport Forum, to address traffic congestion and other issues in the town. Particular consideration is being given to a one-way gyratory system, which is being assessed using a computer-based traffic model. It is envisaged that the Roads Service will be in a position to commence a wider public consultation exercise on this proposal in the autumn of this year.

Mr Jim Wells: Downpatrick people welcome the fact that the matter is being considered and that the Minister is to visit Downpatrick and Ballynahinch within the next few weeks to look at the problem. Will the Minister accept the urgency of the situation, which is strangling the economic life of Downpatrick and its hinterland?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I can confirm that I hope to be visiting the Downpatrick area within the next few weeks. In relation to the bypass for Downpatrick, referred to by the Member, the Roads Service is currently reassessing all potential major work schemes. This is being carried out with a view to compiling a schedule of schemes that could realistically be started in the next 10 years, taking account of the resources likely to be available. I hope to be able to publish the schedule later this year, and a bypass for Downpatrick will be considered for inclusion in that. However, as all Members will appreciate, the number of places in the schedule is limited, so there will be stiff competition among the many possible worthwhile schemes throughout Northern Ireland.

Traffic Signs: Irish Language

Mr Conor Murphy: 7. asked the Minister for Regional Development to give his assessment of the use of Irish on traffic signs.
(AQO698/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The use of Irish on traffic signs in Northern Ireland applies to a small number of tourism signs for attractions that are known and promoted solely by their Irish names.

Mr Conor Murphy: The Minister may be aware of the issue that prompts the question, namely the case where funding should have been provided to erect bilingual signs in the Ring of Gullion — clearly an area where there is appropriate demand. That was scuppered by Roads Service’s refusal to allow Irish on the road signs. Can the Minister inform us, in line with his Pledge of Office — particularly section (c) — what steps he has taken, or plans to take, to promote the use of the Irish language or to seek to remove, where possible, any restrictions that discourage the development of the Irish language?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I have consulted my Department in relation to multilingual signage and asked for some information on the likely cost of changing existing signs. I am informed that the cost of changing signs throughout Northern Ireland would be several million pounds. Because of that, I have no intention at present of proceeding along that route.

Mr Eugene McMenamin: Will the Minister consider introducing road signs similar to those in the Republic of Ireland? These incorporate Irish and English and show the distance in kilometres, in line with European legislation.

Mr Gregory Campbell: As I said, I have asked officials in my Department to consider the possibility of multilingual signage. I have already set out the indications that I am getting. Given the finite nature of resources, of which the hon Member and every other hon Member in this House must be only too well aware, I have no intention, at this stage, of spending very scarce resources on multilingual signage. That money could be much better used in improving the roads infrastructure in Northern Ireland.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Does the Minister agree that it is a greater priority to refurbish existing road signs throughout the Province that have been damaged by the Department of the Environment’s grass-cutting activities, particularly those that have become part of the hedgerows? Can he assure me that, in light of the terrible casualty figures for 2000, maximum effort is being put into the erection of sufficient signage and identification of accident black spots throughout the Province?

Mr Donovan McClelland: I am not sure that that is relevant to the question.

Mr Alex Maskey: Mr Armstrong was allowed two supplementary questions, yet Michelle Gildernew was denied even one supplementary to the question put by Conor Murphy.

Mr Donovan McClelland: As you know, Mr Maskey, it is not normal to take supplementary questions from Members of the same party.

Mr Alex Maskey: I draw your attention to the fact that Mr Billy Armstrong asked a supplementary a moment ago even though he had asked a question previously. I think that you should be checking all the conventions.

Mr Donovan McClelland: We are coming very close to the end of the time available, and there are several people who wish to put questions to the Minister.

Road Safety (West Belfast Schools)

Mr Alex Maskey: 8. asked the Minister for Regional Development to detail any plans to survey schools in the West Belfast constituency in relation to road safety in the vicinity of the schools.
(AQO732/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: My Department’s Roads Service surveys traffic conditions at schools as and when necessary. Where appropriate, it arranges for suitable measures to be put in place to improve road safety. As part of this ongoing work, and in response to representations received about road safety issues, officials carry out regular site visits and arrange meetings with schools, local elected representatives and members of the public to discuss problems and liaise on possible solutions.

Mr Alex Maskey: I acknowledge that officials from the Department of the Environment and the Department for Regional Development have been involved in a series of meetings in West Belfast. These officials have said that they would like to follow through the school-by-school survey in which they have been involved. Can the Minister confirm that his Department will continue to carry out this survey and assess the other schools in West Belfast which have not yet been covered?

Mr Gregory Campbell: I am aware of a recent meeting in the West Belfast area where the issue highlighted in the question was discussed. Roads Service officials who were at the meeting pointed out that a multi-agency approach is often needed when considering road safety matters. This is illustrated by "the three Es" — education, which is given by road safety education officers of the Department of the Environment; enforcement, which is the responsibility of the RUC; and engineering, which is the responsibility of the Roads Service. Of course, my Department remains keen to investigate promptly any specific problems or issues which may be raised with it by assessing what contributions safety engineering might make. This approach is exemplified by the forthcoming meeting between Roads Service officials and the principal of the Holy Child Primary School in West Belfast to discuss traffic management and road safety engineering issues.

Traffic Congestion (Lindsay’s Corner)

Mr Jim Wilson: 9. asked the Minister for Regional Development to outline his plans to address traffic congestion during peak periods at the junction of the A57 Ballyclare-to-Templepatrick road and the B59 Ballyrobert-to-Doagh Road, known locally as Lindsay’s Corner.
(AQO677/00)

Mr Gregory Campbell: The Roads Service plans to carry out a minor works scheme to improve the sight lines for motorists emerging onto the main A57 from the direction of Doagh village. Acquisition of the necessary land is being finalised and, subject to these legal formalities being completed, the Roads Service hopes to start work on the site during April 2001.

Mr Jim Wilson: Can the Minister assure me that he will take immediate steps to bring this project forward, given that some potentially suicidal traffic manoeuvres are being made at this junction? As the Minister admitted in his answer, this junction has a high density of traffic and very heavy vehicles going to and from the Larne ferries. Drivers who want to get onto the main thoroughfare are stopping in the middle of the road on the white lines. I need the Minister’s assurance that he will do everything possible to bring this scheme forward.

Mr Gregory Campbell: I suppose the short answer is yes. The scheme that I mentioned was presented to Newtownabbey Borough Council in May 2000, following consultation in autumn 1999. The acquisition of the land necessary for the scheme took longer than was originally expected, but I hope that the scheme will be in place very shortly.

Mr Donovan McClelland: The time is up. We will move on to questions to the Minister of the Environment.

Mr Danny Kennedy: On a point of order, in relation to your ruling against Mr McCarthy, Mr Deputy Speaker. Outside Question Time, how can Back-Bench Members ask important questions about issues affecting their constituencies?

Mr Donovan McClelland: There is ample opportunity to put that question in writing to the Minister.
My point was that if a question is put with regard to a specific area, we could go round the Assembly, with each person asking about his constituency, and we would be unable to move down the list of questions.

Mr Roger Hutchinson: There were 30 seconds left on the clock during which I could have asked my question. On several occasions the time has run out after a Minister has started to give an answer. Why was I not allowed to ask my question?

Mr Donovan McClelland: Time will be lost for the next set of questions if we continue to run late, and that is unfair.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not understand why you are taking these points of order now. I was ruled out of order and was told that I had to wait until the end of Question Time. Can you bear with me for a minute or two — [Interruption]

Mr Donovan McClelland: I cannot hear Dr Paisley because of the background noise.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: The boss told me when he was in the Chair that I would not be permitted to make my point of order until the end of Question Time. To my surprise he broke his ruling and allowed the Deputy First Minister to make a point of order which was completely out of order according to our rules — it should have been a ministerial statement. Having done that, he then would not let me speak. He said "No, you will have to wait until the end." Then suddenly you, Sir, more gracious, more compassionate, more full of mercy — because you are a Back Bencher and know that you need that facility — took Mr Kennedy’s point and opened it up.
I have no objection; I think that points of order should be taken after questions. However, why should I, having put a question at the beginning, have to wait until the end? Mr Mallon wanted to run away and do other things. That is why he made his point of order and got away with it. I do not want to sit here listening to questions from Mr Maskey, for I am not a bit interested in them. I want to get my question answered.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I must first thank the Member for his kind and gracious words. I understand, Dr Paisley, that you are quite right. I have always understood that points of order are taken on the half-hour at the end of each set of ministerial questions. If I am wrong on that, I will, of course, notify you, but that is my understanding of the way this House has operated in the past and should operate today.

Rev Dr Ian Paisley: Does that mean that I cannot make my point of order? I was on my feet; I was ruled out of order by the boss and told that I would have to wait until the end to put it.

Mr Donovan McClelland: I can only repeat what I have said already. You can put your point of order on the half-hour or at the end of Question Time.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I have a point of order. I feel mistreated. My question was not about specifics; it was a general question. Had it been about a specific area, I would have been out of order.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Mr McCarthy, your points have been noted.

Mr Alex Maskey: I do not want to be taking up too much of Dr Paisley’s time here. Will you explain something for me, Mr Deputy Speaker? You denied Ms Gildernew’s request for a supplementary question because you said you were not taking supplementary questions from the same party. However, Mr Billy Armstrong had a question and was able to ask two supplementary questions.

Mr Donovan McClelland: It is not normal for supplementary questions to be taken from the party that posed the original question. If that has happened, I will look at it and respond to you. [Interruption]
Mr Hutchinson, please sit down. I am taking no further points of order.

The Environment

Planning Applications

Mr Seamus Close: 1. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the progress he is making in clearing the backlog of planning applications.
(AQO704/00)

Mr Sam Foster: The Department of the Environment has made good progress in reducing the backlog of planning applications. The latest complete set of statistics is for the end of December 2000, and it indicates that the backlog has been reduced by 11%. This represents significant progress towards the target in the draft Programme for Government to eliminate the backlog by the end of 2002 and represents good use of the additional funding I have been able to allocate to this work. The reduction has been achieved despite a further 4% increase in 1999 in the number of planning applications compared with the previous year.

Mr Seamus Close: I welcome the progress that has been made to date. Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made with the backlog of area plans, particularly the Lisburn area plan? Does he not agree that by the time this area plan is published, it may well be redundant, overtaken by the Belfast metropolitan area plan?

Mr Sam Foster: I do not want to make excuses, but although the Planning Service actively recruited during 2000, as we enter 2001 it still falls short of its full complement by 54 professional staff. In relation to area plans, the programme set out in the Planning Service’s corporate and business plan provided for full coverage for all of Northern Ireland by 2005. We are on schedule to achieve this target, and I recently launched the Belfast metropolitan area programme, which will cover the Belfast, Carrickfergus, Castlereagh, Lisburn, Newtownabbey and North Down Council areas.

Mrs Annie Courtney: I have listened carefully to the Minister’s response. Does he not agree that in the past developers have used, or have been forced to use, the Planning Appeals Commission as a means of accelerating their developments and that this has worked against the interests of third-party objectors, namely residents, and has often resulted in unnecessary friction between planners, developers and the local community? Can the Minister give an assurance that his Department will encourage local planners to make area decisions, thus avoiding lengthy planning appeals and ensuring that local economic development schemes are not held up unnecessarily?

Mr Sam Foster: Hold-ups are annoying, and we would like a fluid planning programme. It should be borne in mind that the determination of planning applications by the Planning Service also requires timely advice from key consultees such as the Roads Service, the Water Service and the Environment and Heritage Service. The Planning Service is actively working with its consultees to see how the consultation processes can be improved, especially by the use of new technology and by sharing information across Departments. We want to expedite all planning applications.

Mr Billy Bell: In the Minister’s response to Mr Close, I was pleased to hear him state that the backlog had been reduced by 11%. The Programme for Government commits the Executive to clearing the backlog by December 2002, which is less than 24 months away. Will the Minister give an assurance that this target will be met?

Mr Sam Foster: There are no absolutes in this world. The target in the draft Programme for Government is the end of 2002. I expect that this target will be met. However, it will depend on some stability in the number of applications received over the next two years and on the ability of the Planning Service to recruit planners.

Curran Bog

Rev William McCrea: 2. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will undertake to designate Curran Bog a special area of conservation (SAC) as it is one of the best bogs remaining outside the current SAC network and larger than any other bog.
(AQO683/00)

Mr Sam Foster: I have no plans at present to add CurranBog to the UK’s list of special areas of conservation. Those are selected on the basis that they represent sites of international importance for nature conservation. The UK Government propose to submit a total of 43sites that include active raised bog habitat to the European Commission as candidates for areas of special conservation. Nine of those sites are in Northern Ireland.
The Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), which advises the UK Government on conservation matters, considers that this number of raised bog sites represents a sufficient proportion of the total resource, includes the most important sites and provides sufficient geographical coverage across the UK. Curran Bog has been designated as an area of special scientific interest (ASSI) and will continue to enjoy the protection that that brings.
As the Member knows, in the next few weeks I expect to publish a consultation paper on measures to strengthen the management and protection of ASSIs.

Rev William McCrea: Some time ago a private firm was given planning permission to excavate at the adjoining Ballynahone Bog. After representations from myself and others, planning permission had to be withdrawn, for which the Department had to pay several hundred thousand pounds in compensation. In light of the Ballynahone protection and the proximity of Curran to Ballynahone, is it not important that Curran is given the special protection that such a designation would entail?

Mr Sam Foster: The issue to which DrMcCrea refers was before my time in the Department — it was during direct rule. Therefore I cannot give him a direct answer. All I can say is that Curran Bog has not been selected as a candidate for designation as an area for special conservation because a high proportion of the bog has been cut for peat and also because of its close proximity to Ballynahone, which has a greater proportion of intact bog.

Mr Billy Armstrong: Further to the Minister’s comments, has any thought been given to financial recompense for landowners on an annual basis? I draw his attention to the fact that farmers already receive money for habitat improvement. Perhaps a similar payment could be paid annually to the farmers who own the bog and the surrounding areas.

Mr Sam Foster: Just a short answer: we have no plans afoot to do as the Member requests.

Tree Preservation Orders

Ms Patricia Lewsley: 3. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the number of tree preservation orders made in the Lagan Valley constituency in each of the last five years for which figures are available.
(AQO691/00)

Mr Jim Wells: 12. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the number of tree preservation orders currently in effect in Northern Ireland.
(AQO693/00)

Mr Sam Foster: Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission I will take questions3 and 12 together.
Since 1975 my Department has made a total of 219 tree preservation orders (TPOs), all of which currently remain in effect. My Department does not keep records of tree preservation orders made on a constituency basis. However, from the information available I can say that over the last fiveyears two tree preservation orders were made in the Lisburn area, two in the Ballynahinch area, and one in the Dunmurry area.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I thank the Minister very much for his answer. Does he agree that there have been times when developers have felled trees to make way for new developments without asking for any expert opinion or report? If so, has his Department imposed any penalty on such people?

Mr Sam Foster: I am aware of weaknesses in current tree preservation order legislation, particularly with regard to enforcement powers. I am, however, considering proposals to strengthen those powers to ensure that courts, when determining the level of fine, have regard to any financial gain that has resulted from the offence.

Mr Jim Wells: Does the Minister share the concern that many people in the Province have about the slash and burn activities of many developers, who move in and destroy mature trees before lodging a planning application? The Minister wrote to me this morning to say that he had plans to update the legislation on TPOs. Can he tell me when will that happen and whether it will be by way of amendments to the planning legislation or by way of free-standing legislation, which the House can debate?

Mr Sam Foster: Articles64 and 65 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 give my Department discretionary powers to make tree preservation orders for a number of purposes, including the protection of woodland areas.
A tree preservation order prohibits cutting down, topping or lopping protected trees without the Department’s consent. The proposals that we are putting forward shortly may include provisions to make it easier to use injunctions to prevent tree-cutting operations from continuing, and to make it an automatic requirement to replace trees protected by a tree preservation order that have been removed or destroyed without consent. Trees in a conservation area will also be given the same protection as trees covered by a tree preservation order. These amendments are being considered along with a range of other proposals affecting planning law in Northern Ireland. This legislation will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

Mr Jim Shannon: Does the Minister agree that the present legislation is not capable of responding to those individuals and companies wishing to take down or remove trees? Further to his response to Mr Wells, I want to raise the issue of people who cut down trees at the weekend or at night. Can his Department respond quickly to circumstances like that and is it possible to ensure that sufficient officers will be available to carry out the work?

Mr Sam Foster: We abhor any trees under a preservation order being cut down — in fact, we abhor it anywhere that it is destroying the landscape. We take action when possible, but it is not always easy to accomplish that. I can assure the Member that we look at the matter pedantically and take action where and when we can. We do not agree with such destruction at all.

Mr Ivan Davis: In answer to Ms Lewsley, the Minister made the point that he is looking at the current legislation. In answer to Mr Wells, he talked about bringing in legislation at the earliest opportunity. He talks about the earliest opportunity to improve enforcement. Can he not give us a more specific timescale?

Mr Sam Foster: It is very difficult to be absolute in these instances, and it would be wrong of me to give a specific time or date. I can assure the House that we will pursue this with utmost haste.

Redevelopment (Belfast): Planning Application 2/2000/0520/F

Mr Sammy Wilson: 6. asked the Minister of the Environment if he intends to hold a public inquiry into planning application 2/2000/0520/F in respect of major redevelopment between Royal Avenue and Donegall Street.
(AQO695/00)

Mr Sam Foster: This application was designated as a "major" under article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 on the grounds that, if permitted, it would affect the whole of a neighbourhood. This empowers the Department to cause a public local inquiry to be held and to hear representations from all interested parties before a decision is reached. Alternatively, the Department may issue a notice of opinion on this application, in which case the applicant is notified of the decision that the Department is proposing to take and is given the opportunity of a hearing before the Planning Appeals Commission prior to a final decision being issued. This case has raised many issues which need further consideration before a decision can be made on whether a public inquiry is necessary.

Mr Sammy Wilson: Is the Minister aware of the growing frustration with the way that the Planning Service of the Department of the Environment is holding up major developments in Belfast city centre, which has not had any major development for 15 years? Given that some article 31 applications have been with the Department for over two years, will the Minister now give an assurance that article 31 will not be used as a delaying tactic in this case? Also, will he assure the House that this application will not be judged by its likely affect on a scheme not yet submitted, as has been suggested by the Belfast Regeneration Office?

Mr Sam Foster: My Department does not endeavour to hold up any applications. There is a lot to go through when such applications come forth. There are four applications which affect Belfast city centre.
This application was received on 25 February 2000 from Dunloe Ewart (Cathedral Way) Ltd. An environmental impact assessment was requested on 8 March 2000. It was advertised on 25 August 2000 and neighbours notified on 24 August 2000. Due to changes in the application description, it was re-advertised on 20 October 2000 and neighbours were re-notified. Eight letters of objection were received following this advertisement process. It was designated as a "major" under article 31 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 on 28 November 2000.
Solicitors acting for Dunloe Ewart (Cathedral Way) informed the Department by letter dated 21 December 2000 that it was their intention to seek a judicial review of the Department’s decision to apply article 31 to this application. As far as I am concerned, this is the only application we have for planning permission in the city centre.

Brownfield and Greenfield Development

Ms Carmel Hanna: 7. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the proportion of houses built on (a) brownfield and (b) greenfield sites in each of the last five years, and the optimum target for brownfield development over the next five years.
(AQO726/00)

Mr Sam Foster: No historical information is available on the proportion of houses built on brownfield or greenfield sites. The Department for Regional Development, in its response to the recommendations of the independent panel’s public examination of the regional development strategy, considered that an aspirational target of 40% should be set for accommodating new housing on brownfield sites. This target, if it remains in the final regional development strategy, will be reflected by my Department in the provision of future housing and development plans. At that time appropriate systems will have to be put in place to monitor progress against this target.

Ms Carmel Hanna: I thank the Minister for his answer. Does he share my concern that the target set in the Belfast metropolitan plan for development of brownfield sites is 40%, whereas in Great Britain it is being increased to 60%? Does he agree that the proposed 60% greenfield development in that plan is unsustainable?

Mr Sam Foster: A lot depends upon the regional development strategy, which we will have to work with. The advantages of brownfield developments include encouragement to reuse buildings — which I think the Member will accept — reduction of dereliction and discouragement of crime. It brings new households to ageing communities, thus adding new children to local schools, and new members to local clubs, churches and community organisations. It reduces the number of people commuting longer distances from the edge of over-expanding towns. It reinforces public transport services in towns. It reduces the consumption of greenfield sites and natural resources. There are great advantages in brownfield sites, and this is what we will be working on. Whatever is built on brownfield sites will help reduce the pressure on greenfield demand.

Mr George Savage: Does the Minister appreciate that improved protection for areas of special scientific interest — especially around those brownfield sites — is bound up, in the public mind, with interest in the right to roam around those brownfield areas and brownfield sites? Will he comment on that?

Mr Sam Foster: It is a difficult question. I am not sure what exactly the Member is getting at. The Planning Service is very pedantic and very objective in dealing with applications. I assure him that nothing is done in a reckless fashion.

Mr Sammy Wilson: I am alarmed with the answer the Minister has given to Ms Hanna’s original question. He has outlined the virtues of brownfield sites, but he is telling the House that 84,000 new homes over the next 20 years are going to be built on greenfield sites. Will he tell the House what he intends to do to get the percentage of houses built on brownfield sites up to the same level as in the rest of the United Kingdom? Will he allow higher densities? Will he permit fewer car-parking spaces for houses in the inner city? What other measures does he intend to introduce to increase the number of properties on brownfield sites, which he told this House are advantageous to inner city communities?

Mr Sam Foster: I assure the Member that we do not take these things lightly. I cannot give him an absolute answer at this particular stage. However, planning applications are treated objectively and in context of what is happening around them. We will not take any applications in a light manner. These are difficulties which the Department faces at this particular time. They are not easy to solve, but we take decisions in a very objective and planned fashion.

Pollution

Mrs Joan Carson: 8. asked the Minister of the Environment to detail the resources available for policing incidents of pollution.
(AQO719/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department’s Environment and Heritage Service operates a 24-hour response to inland and coastal pollution throughout Northern Ireland. A Freephone pollution hotline allows the public to report pollution incidents. Key staff are on call at all times. The emergency pollution officer heads a team of six staff in Belfast, and he also has available to him the services of 41field staff employed by fisheries boards and district councils across Northern Ireland. These field staff spend approximately 30% of their time on pollution response work.
These resources have increased significantly over recent years. The number of field staff employed by district councils has increased from nine to 29 over the last 10 or soyears. The team of staff at headquarters, who deal specifically with pollution prevention and response work, has increased over the same period from three to six. A further three staff are due to join the team over the next few years in response to new pollution prevention and control responsibilities.
Of course, prevention is better than cure, and I have been significantly increasing the resources available for work in this area and in a number of related areas of activity in the water quality unit in the Environment and Heritage Service. Over the next two financial years, through budget increases and the retention of regulatory receipts, I plan to increase the size of the water quality unit in the Environment and Heritage Service by 33, thereby raising staff levels from 44 to 77, which is a considerable increase. These staff will be involved in a range of existing and new work areas in the unit. This will include activities such as pollution prevention and control, discharge regulation and monitoring of water quality.

Mrs Joan Carson: I thank the Minister for his extremely good reply. I am delighted to hear that staff numbers will increase from 44 to 77. That is really going to do something. The need for effective policing on the waterways was recently highlighted in my own constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, where a considerable amount of farm slurry went into a swallow-hole near the scenic Marble Arch caves at the source of the Cladagh River. This resulted in thousands of fish, and the Erne and Melvin hatchery, being destroyed. It wiped out the brown trout native breeding stock as well.
Does the Minister believe that the present fines are enough to deter potential polluters? Is he satisfied that the penalties are strong enough? Will there be any educational programmes to make farmers and country users more aware of the effect that slurry, in particular, and other substances have on our river life and fish stocks?

Mr Sam Foster: The maximum fine for pollution is presently £20,000. In recent years the courts have demonstrated an increasing tendency to impose fines approaching this maximum for polluters found guilty of serious pollution offences. Polluters found guilty in court of causing pollution are liable for compensation costs, including the costs of restocking where a fish kill has occurred and of any clean up. These costs can be large and frequently exceed the fines imposed by the court. At this stage I am satisfied that the penalties available to the courts through both fines and costs are sufficient to act as a deterrent if rigorously used.
With regard to the education process, there are no plans as far as the Department is concerned to educate people. We hope that people show a degree of responsibility rather than irresponsibility.
I am very aware of the pollution incident in the Marble Arch area of Fermanagh, and I deplore it. Farm slurry which was dumped into a hole in the ground contaminated local streams, including one feeding a fish farm which was used primarily to breed native stock for the Erne system. Thousands of fish were killed, and there may be longer term effects on fish fry and breeding stocks. This is a major setback to restocking plans in the Erne system. Therefore I have instructed my officials to pursue their investigation of this incident vigorously. The farmer involved has been identified, and the statutory samples have been taken with a view to prosecution.

Mr Eamonn ONeill: I also welcome the increase in public resources poured into this area. Does the Minister agree that this has perhaps been the worst year on record for pollution incidents in our rivers all over Northern Ireland and that the burden falling on staff is huge? Would he consider using some of this resource to help with the training and empowerment of voluntary bailiffs, who could report pollution incidents?
The evidence indicates that given the time from when an incident is discovered until it is reported and a sample is taken the chances are that the source will not be proven. If angling associations and groups of that nature had voluntary bailiffs who had the necessary training to take samples, and who could take those samples as incidents are detected, people could be brought to book more readily.

Mr Sam Foster: We would like to get to grips with those people who irresponsibly pollute waterways, wherever they might be. We have no plans at present to teach people or help voluntary groups. We feel that the Department, with the increase of staff I have referred to earlier, should help to ease the situation considerably.
Last year 2,573 pollution incidents were reported to the Environment and Heritage Service. On investigation, 1,699 were confirmed. The difference between reported and confirmed pollution incidents can be accounted for largely by natural phenomena being mistakenly reported as pollution or by the fact that some minor incidents can be so short-lived that, by the time pollution response staff arrive on site, any evidence of pollution has gone.

Environmental Protection Legislation: Consultation

Mr Oliver Gibson: 11. asked the Minister of the Environment if he will make it his policy, in liaison with the Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development, to ensure that the farming community will be consulted in relation to new legislation to protect the environment.
(AQO669/00)

Mr Sam Foster: My Department enjoys an excellent working relationship with farmers, their representatives and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development. In the past, it has consulted successfully with farming bodies on a range of policy proposals. Most recently farming representatives were fully involved in the Northern Ireland Biodiversity Advisory Group, which, last autumn, submitted proposals to me for a Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy. On 23 January I announced in the Assembly my intention to consult on measures to strengthen existing legislation for the protection and management of areas of special scientific interest (ASSIs).
I will ensure that farmers’ representatives, landowners and the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, as well as others interested in protecting the environment, are fully consulted. The protection of sites in the future will be best achieved through partnership with landowners and other relevant interests. I will continue to apply the principles of full and open consultation with all interested parties on any further legislative proposals relating to the protection of the environment.

Mr Oliver Gibson: I welcome the Minister’s statement that he enjoys the support and encouragement of the farming community. The difficulties with regard to tree protection orders (TPOs), special areas of conservation (SACs) and those areas that are still designated ASSIs include identification of the locality and protection by fencing and the identification of the rare trees.
Very rare trees may be identified on a map, but developers and the men with the chainsaws normally do not carry maps. Therefore there must be other ways of identifying trees that are to be preserved. This was particularly relevant in the case of Knocknamoe in Omagh, where there were some specialist trees in the estate. What efforts will the Minister make in relation to identification and proper protection?

Mr Sam Foster: We will do all we can to ensure that people are aware of the special areas of control, whether they relate to trees, ASSIs, or otherwise.
A consultation paper will review the protection and management of ASSIs, and it will pose questions about the nature of management agreements, the continued payment of compensation, and action to deal with third-party damage. I suggest to Mr Gibson and representatives of the farming and landowning communities, as well as other interested parties, that comments could be given through that arrangement over a three-month period.
We are seeking partnership with all concerned for the protection of any of these species. I ask Mr Gibson, through his channels, to ensure that those issues will be brought forward in the consultation document.

Areas of Special Scientific Interest

Mr Edwin Poots: 14. asked the Minister of the Environment to outline the steps he is taking to give greater protection to areas of special scientific interest.
(AQO675/00)

Mr Sam Foster: As I indicated during the debate on 23 January on the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, there is a range of actions under way to improve the protection of special sites. I am grateful for the additional resources made available in the recent Budget for work on environmental protection and nature conservation. Some of that money will be available to support payments to landowners, voluntary bodies and district councils for the management of designated sites. That funding will enhance the Department of the Environment’s ability to encourage good conservation management at the designated sites.
The Department of the Environment is committed to producing a Northern Ireland biodiversity strategy following the recent receipt of the report of the Northern Ireland biodiversity group. Its recommendations include proposals for protecting special sites and priority habitats. My officials will take full account of the group’s recommendations as they prepare that strategy.
The Department will continue to work closely with other Departments whose responsibilities have an important bearing on the natural environment. One important example is integrating conservation into policies for the countryside and the rural environment.
I intend to consult on proposals to strengthen the existing legislation for the protection and management of ASSIs. A consultation paper will be published in the next few weeks.

Building Regulations 2000

Mr James Leslie: I beg to move the motion standing in the name of the Committee Chairperson:
That this Assembly annuls the Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 (SR 389/2000).
Members may wonder why a building regulation is being presented by the Department of Finance and Personnel. It is one of the consequences of the way in which Departments were divided at devolution. It is perhaps a little curious that this division moved from the Department of the Environment to the Department of Finance and Personnel. However, that is where it is, and therefore it is a matter for the Finance and Personnel Committee.
The Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 Statutory Rule was laid in the Assembly on 15 December. There was no pre-drafting scrutiny — it was not brought to the Committee for pre-drafting scrutiny prior to that, although the consultation on the contents of the regulations occurred in the middle of 2000. As Members are probably aware, once a rule has been formally laid with the Assembly, a Statutory Committee can do only one of two things with it: approve it or seek its annulment by the Assembly. There is no facility for amending a statutory rule. Consequently, the Committee found itself with what one might describe as a nuclear option. That was to annul the rule, given the Committee’s dissatisfaction with quite a number of its terms.
It will be of great benefit to Ministers if Committees are encouraged to engage in the pre-drafting scrutiny of statutory rules because Committees can provide extra eyes for the Ministers. That would lead to some improvement in a number of the regulations. Committees have the time to look into issues, and they can spend time mulling over them and taking evidence on them. That time is not necessarily available to Ministers. In particular, it was not available to the Finance Minister on 15 December when the Budget was being finalised. That was one of the busiest times of the year for the Minister, and for the Finance and Personnel Committee, which was also under considerable pressure at that time to deal with the Committee Stage of the Government Resources and Accounting Bill. That Bill will be coming before the House for its Consideration Stage very shortly.
Therefore, the timings were unfortunate, but I encourage the Finance and Personnel Minister and other Ministers to engage in some form of pre-drafting scrutiny with their Committees when looking ahead to the tabling of regulations.
This will be constructive and in the best interests of all concerned. I will deal with the substance of the regulation, but I am conscious that some other members of the Committee may want to comment so I will try to set out the general territory.
The Committee is in no doubt that many provisions in the statutory rule are well worth having and will be improvements to the current regulatory environment. However, the Committee as a whole was concerned about the way the provisions for protecting domestic properties against radon gas have been framed. At present, existing protection is provided by the designation of areas. The new regulations would change the designations. Some quite considerable new areas would become designated and other areas, which were previously designated, would become undesignated. The mode of designation is done on a grid square, which may be handy from a survey point of view, but it is not necessarily helpful when you are looking at building lines or the area of a development.
Radon occurs naturally and is a particular problem in areas where uranium and similar heavy elements in the underlying rock decay and produce other radioactive products that pass into the air. Radon gas increases the risk of lung cancer — I will discuss the statistics later.
As soon as the Committee had sight of this statutory rule, members immediately alighted on the radon issue and were concerned about it. Consequently, the Department was asked to provide expert guidance, and evidence was also taken from building regulators. Our concerns were underlined and reinforced by the evidence we heard.
I thank the Department of Finance and Personnel for their efforts. It was a short timescale, but a great effort was made to explain the technical background, and papers were swiftly provided for the Committee to consider the matter in more detail. It became apparent early in the process that the Committee should seek to annul this statutory rule, and, due to the timetabling of Assembly business, it was important that the motion be put down.
The Committee noted that the regulations relate to domestic dwellings, and members were concerned that they would not apply to non-domestic properties such as schools, libraries and leisure centres. Considerable numbers of people use those buildings and there would be risks to their health if the appropriate defence against radon were not put in place.
This statutory rule assumes that a survey of radon gas levels, based upon what is really an imperfect system of assessment, is sufficient to exclude large parts of the countryside from inclusion in the designated areas. The Assembly may be interested to hear that the Chief Building Control Officers’ Forum shares the views and concerns of the Finance and Personnel Committee. In its submission it stated
"Designated areas are determined on the basis of the probability of radon being present in that area. New houses which are not in a designated area may still have a radon problem."
When you look at the map you immediately find yourself asking why there is a clear area in the middle that seems to be surrounded by areas that are designated as having a radon risk. This led the Committee to conclude that the most sensible thing to do, given the widespread incidence of radon and the uncertainty of measurement, would be to designate the whole of Northern Ireland as a radon affected area.
Regulations should therefore be put in place requiring all new dwellings, and the other buildings which I mentioned earlier, to be protected against it.
In this context you clearly have to look at the cost of these measures. This was done during the consultation process. The figure generally quoted as the normal cost for making the necessary improvements to the foundations is between £100 and £150 per house. This figure applies if you do it before the house is built; the situation is far worse and more expensive if you have to do it retrospectively. However, the Chief Building Control Officers’ Forum said that it could cost up to £400 per house to provide a high degree of protection. This seems to be the maximum figure.
That is not the only element of these building regulations that adds to the cost of building houses. A number of other measures also increase costs. One relates to the guarding and protection of steps and ramps from impact — that is estimated to cost £100 but could cost up to £600 — and another relates to glazing on ground floors, which is also expected to cost about £100. A further regulation requires disabled access to be available at all ground-floor-level dwellings, which is expected to cost £1,100 per dwelling. However, when you look at the evidence gathered during the consultation process, you will find that of the three independent building contractors consulted, two opined that the likely cost would be rather more than that, and that where houses are built on a slope the cost could be several thousand pounds. A number of those consulted expressed the view that it was perhaps excessive to require every dwelling to have such access. When you add all of those things up, you can see that a number of the measures in here will add to the cost of building.
However, the Department’s own medical statistics show that in Northern Ireland about 60 deaths a year are believed to come from radon-related lung cancer. Various statistics have been provided about the probability of contracting lung cancer in this way. The lifetime risk of contracting lung cancer induced by radon at the action level — the level or concentration at which it triggers the existing regulations — has been estimated by the Imperial Cancer Research Fund as 1% for non-smokers. These statistics can be quite hard to extrapolate accurately; in brief, they set the maximum risk of contracting lung cancer during one’s lifetime at one in 10,000 in the lowest-risk areas. The actual figure is bound to be rather lower, however.
When put in perspective, the figure of 60 deaths per year from lung cancer that may result from radon represents quite a high probability. For instance, the number of deaths occurring from new variant CJD in the whole of the United Kingdom is lower than that. We have spent billions of pounds of public money on slaughtering cattle on the basis that there might be some connection between BSE and new variant CJD. In addition, hundreds of millions of pounds of agricultural profit have been swept away. I do not think the argument that it costs somewhere between £100 and £400 per house — albeit of private money, not public money — is a good one for suggesting that measures should not be taken to protect against radon. When all of that is taken into account, it is the view of the Committee that the present limited provision in the rule, which leaves out large areas of Northern Ireland from designation as a radon area, is unsatisfactory.
The Committee is unanimously agreed that the building industry should be required to provide radon protection to new dwellings in all parts of the country. We also ask the Minister to look again at the apparent omission of non-domestic properties and, in particular, places where children and young people gather — such as schools, libraries and leisure centres, not to mention hospitals — in the context of these regulations.
I dislike regulations almost as much as I dislike taxation. I firmly believe that we would be better governed if there were considerably less of both. There is probably a tendency — perhaps as a result of direct rule, aided and abetted by belonging to the European Union, which is a regulation-designing factory — to churn out these regulations. They receive very little or no scrutiny and we are then burdened with the cost of the consequences. Perhaps a lesson comes out of this episode: we have to find the time to look closely and carefully at the number of regulations we are passing.
In conclusion, in view of the inadequacies that I have outlined, I recommend to the Assembly that it should support the Department of Finance and Personnel Committee’s motion for annulment of the rule.

Mr Donovan McClelland: Questions to Ministers took up some of the time allocated to this motion. I am afraid that I am going to have to limit speeches to seven minutes, which will enable us to hear from the Minister and have a winding-up speech and a vote.

Ms Patricia Lewsley: I welcome the opportunity to speak on this issue. Although I am a Committee member I am against the prayer of annulment going ahead. The building regulations, some of which MrLeslie has mentioned, are a package. Therefore we cannot take out the piece of the package that we are not happy with and ask for the rest of the regulations to go through. They have to be passed as a package, which is why I will not be supporting this prayer of annulment.
I do not deny that radon is a very serious issue, but in some areas where there are high incidences of radon there is no protection. These regulations will give them immediate protection. The Minister has said that he might consult further on radon, so these regulations may be amended further down the line.
It is also important to discuss other issues included in these building regulations, with particular regard to disability access. I have often said that people with disabilities have been discriminated against in Northern Ireland for many years. This would have been a positive step for them. Under the proposed regulations, homes and ground floor accommodation will be upgraded from habitable to visitable. Therefore I propose that the regulations go forward.
The regulations also propose to introduce more up-to-date fire safety codes relating to means of escape and back-up power supply to domestic smoke detection systems. Considering the number of fire-related deaths in the past couple of months, it would be remiss of us, as an Assembly, not to put those regulations into place as soon as possible.
If these regulations go forward today, then they will be implemented from 1 April. If we vote for annulment, they will not be in place until April 2002. If we support these regulations, with the hope that there will be further consultation and an amendment further down the line, the operative date will be May 2002.
Because of the entire package, including the provisions relating to immediate protection from radon, disabled access and fire precautions, we should support the regulations.

Mr Peter Robinson: Many who will speak in the debate would, no doubt, have preferred it if the Minister had spoken earlier in the debate, so that they could have tailored their comments appropriately, in the knowledge of the position that he intended to adopt.
It might be useful if I were to point out to those who are not members of the Finance and Personnel Committee that there was — without exception — an acceptance on the part of the Committee that the risk was of a sufficiently high level for the matter to be treated with some urgency. So far as I am aware, there was no division among members of the Committee about the desired result.
There are, however, some procedural difficulties. I could characterise the division in the Committee as one between pragmatists and idealists. Some members realise that half a loaf is often better than no bread. However, because of the procedures, the Minister can tell the Committee that there can be no cherry-picking with the statutory rule — that it is all or nothing — and that there will be a consequence if we proceed with an annulment. The consequence would be a delay in the bringing into force of measures for the protection of the areas of Northern Ireland that are at highest risk from radon, as well as of other beneficial parts of the regulations, including those relating to disabled access. That is the downside; the upside is that the Department would come under additional pressure to deal with the issue in a more general way for Northern Ireland, as opposed to the present piecemeal approach. Many members of the Committee would be unable to tell the Minister how we would vote on the measure; we must wait until we hear the Minister’s response. The Committee would like a firm commitment from the Minister that he will take action soon to meet the Committee’s concerns.
There are cost ramifications for the end user; any costs placed on the builder of a house will be passed on to the purchaser. If, on further investigation, it appears that there is no risk to certain areas of Northern Ireland from radon gas, why should people in those areas be required to have protection from something from which they are not at risk?
Thus far, the consultation has been narrow. In correspondence with the Committee, the Minister put his hands up and recognised that the Committee should have been given an opportunity to consider the matter prior to the statutory rule’s being laid before the House. That would have allowed the Committee to hear views from a wider range of people, in addition to the building control officers and the Department. It would also be necessary to have the views of the construction industry.
Undoubtedly that can take place if the Minister agrees to take on board the issue and to have further and wider consultation. Eyebrows would be raised if, without there being scientific evidence of people being under threat, we were to say that, regardless of that, protection had to be made available. The bottom line for many of us is that it would be unwise for the Assembly if the Minister were to show a willingness to meet the Assembly’s position, to have the regulations annulled. In those circumstances those areas which are at highest risk would, in effect, be denied for at least a year the protection that they would have under these building regulations. It would be a strange set of circumstances were the Committee to say that in order to have a wider protection we were going to take away that protection for at least that period from those who most need it.
Having been on both sides of the fence, I say by way of advice — not of warning — to the Minister that the Committee feels that it has not been well treated in this issue, and in other respects. The Minister could relieve the Committee of some of its anxieties by firming up the remarks he will make to the House. I suspect that unless he goes a little further than he has thus far, there are those on the Committee who will feel obliged to divide the House on the matter. As a Minister, I am sure that at this stage he must be wondering what the outcome of that would be, given the precarious numerical circumstances of political parties in this House. In all circumstances the Minister would be best served were he to give as firm an undertaking as possible that he will carry out the fullest of consultation and that he will consider each of the other parts of Northern Ireland with a view to as soon as possible bringing forward regulations that will meet any further need identified by his investigations.

Mr Alex Maskey: Go raibh maith agat. I do not want to repeat the comments and sentiments of other Members, but, similarly, I would welcome any assurances that the Minister could give us so that we do not have to seek this annulment.
I have two further points to add to what is almost a questionnaire. Radon, like many other things, does not recognise borders. I have already asked the Minister what exchanges he has had with his counterpart in the Twenty-six Counties, and I await his response. We are told that, close to the border, there are areas of high radon contamination. Without repeating any points, I would like assurances with regard to the designation of areas as radon-affected.
I support the idea of further consultation on, and consideration of, this matter in the months ahead. If, for example, a developer were moving on a piece of property, only part of which was designated as radon-affected, would the highest levels of protection be required on any development on all of that site? I sought assurances from Department officials, but they were unable to give me a positive response. That question, therefore, needs to be addressed. We have been told that the designation issue is an administrative nightmare. For most Members who raised concerns, however, the issue was whether the entire area needed to be designated as radon-affected. Quite simply, further consideration is needed, and I am happy to support the general view of other Committee members if the Minister will assure us that we will have this consultation in the months ahead.

Mr Seamus Close: From my standpoint, I am afraid, I require — and will be looking for — more than simple assurances. This issue is a very serious one — it involves lung cancer. According to the Department’s figures, every year in Northern Ireland 60deaths are caused by radon-related lung cancer — 60deaths per annum. I would consider even one such death as being too many, but 60deaths is far beyond that. We have a responsibility to do everything in our power to ensure that there will be no deaths through cancer in Northern Ireland.
Unfortunately, we are living in a society, and among countries, where there is a radiation smog through which people are battling day and daily for their health. There are high-tension power lines and radio-telecommunication masts — I could go on. We have one of the highest rates of cancer in the Western World, and people ask why.
We have here an opportunity to do something about the situation — we can designate Northern Ireland as a radon-free area and thus take the necessary steps to prevent, wherever possible, those 60deaths. The issue of finance should not be brought into the debate. What price would anyone in the House put on a human life? It is impossible to do that. That is the number one issue which makes me insist that this annulment go through today. Simple assurances are not enough.
But there is another issue: how the Assembly and its Committees have been dealt with over the past couple of years, and how they are to be dealt with in the future. How often have we heard comments such as "Yes, it would have been beneficial if we had had the time to come to the Committees to consult with you and to allow you to perform your statutory function"? How often have we said that the time allocated to us was totally inadequate?
We had another opportunity to do this when consultation was taking place. Let us look at the claim that there was a need to carry out further consultation with other organisations. I have a list here of some 58 organisations that were consulted on these regulations in draft form. Many of these organisations said to the Department that they wanted all of Northern Ireland to be designated a radon-free area. Yet we are told today that there needs to be more consultation. That "more consultation" can only mean consulting with the very same people who are on this list and have already been consulted.
What is the point of consultation when it is not listened to? Surely the most important people to be consulted on this are the building control officers who day and daily implement these regulations. What did the group of building control officers tell us? They said that Northern Ireland should be designated a radon-free zone. They told us that the current faffing around with regulations is leading to confusion with builders and has created a loss of credibility in the eyes of members of the building control profession. For example, sites previously designated as requiring radon protection are, under these new regulations, no longer deemed to need that protection. What sort of message is that sending? One day you are in, and the next day you are out. We have grey areas in Northern Ireland — in certain local government areas a field will be in, while the next will be out; one side of a road will be in, and the other will be out. What sort of confusion is that going to lead to?
What is the solution? Let these regulations go forward and, after a period of time, introduce yet further regulations to change yet again that which would have been in being for a matter of months.
The whole thing is farcical. A clear message has to go out that the Assembly and its Committees are not nodding dogs, rubber stamps or whatever terminology you want to use. A Northern Ireland Assembly in now in situ and we are here to represent the views of our electorate. If people decide, for whatever reason, not to consult us or give us opportunities to be consulted, the onus to rectify the situation will be left fairly on their shoulders. This Assembly cannot be treated like a dogsbody. There were plenty of opportunities to consult with the appropriate Committee, but someone, somewhere, decided not to bother.
The Committee has suggested that we wait for the Minister’s response to see whether we pursue this issue or not. I understand that specific assurances were sought from the Minister and that he gave a reply in which he was quite specific and said that he could not give us the precise assurances we were seeking. The Minister gave us our answer, and the Committee should therefore stand by its concern for the people of Northern Ireland and insist that this annulment take place.

Mr Derek Hussey: I support the prayer of annulment which has been proposed by the Deputy Chairperson of the Finance and Personnel Committee.
The issue of inadequacy in the processing of new building regulations has quite properly been laid before the House, and we have no option but to consider this prayer of annulment. The great difficulty facing us is the fact that the majority of what is contained in the proposed new regulations is not contentious and, indeed, will lead to improved safety provision for all users of domestic properties and enhanced access for the disabled. Therefore it is fair to say that there is no desire to throw the baby out with the bath water. I sincerely trust that in his response to this debate the Minister can offer proper reassurance to the House that this will not happen.
By now Members will be well aware of the major area of concern to those of us who support the prayer of annulment, namely the regulations dealing with protection against the harmful effects of radon gas. I am not satisfied with the proposed regulations dealing with radon. As has already been said, we in the Committee have received support from the Chief Building Control Officers’ Forum in Northern Ireland. Departmental officials suggested that opposition to their proposed new regulations might be politically motivated — I think that is with a small "p" — but I am sure that everyone will agree that Northern Ireland’s chief building control officers have no axe to grind and that their opinions, based on technical expertise, should be taken seriously.
Radon gas can kill; it is therefore a matter of great concern that proper protection against its effects is in place for all the people of Northern Ireland. I live in an identified radon risk area, and it is not unusual in west Tyrone to find radon readings eight times in excess of the recommended maximum level. I have attended funerals of constituents whose early deaths were understood to have been caused in part by the effects of radon gas. I therefore have no hesitation in supporting the regulations to protect against radon. My concern is the lack of coverage for the rest of Northern Ireland.
Recent investigations by the National Radiological Protection Board indicate that every county in Northern Ireland is affected by radon. The Assembly and the Minister have a duty of care, a duty to ensure that the effects of radon are minimised throughout Northern Ireland and not just in areas where the risk is perceived to be greatest. The regulations contain a radon risk grid, and some areas are designated as not having a high enough risk to deserve proper regulatory cover.
I do not accept that, and neither does the Chief Building Control Officers’ Forum. Moreover, I would maintain that assumption rather than proper scientific investigation designates sections of the risk grid.
Effective protection at new-build stage costs a couple of hundred pounds, but to remedy radon intrusion in an existing building can cost thousands. Given the concerns that have arisen today, I urge the Minister to confirm that he intends to investigate further statutory rules that could extend radon designation to cover all of Northern Ireland, thus affording proper radon protection to all our citizens. He should also include non-domestic properties in radon protection regulations.
Finally, I ask the Minister to assure the Committee and the House that, in future, Committees will be given a proper opportunity to consider and scrutinise matters fully, prior to any rule’s being laid. While awaiting the Minister’s response, I support the prayer of annulment.

Mr Jim Shannon: I want to dwell on the issue of radon gas, specifically because it is a distinct problem in the area I represent — both in the Assembly and on Ards Borough Council. There is a real need to bring the legislation forward now.
Radon gas is a natural killer — you cannot smell, see or taste it, but it is doing you harm. Mr Hussey mentioned the funerals he has attended in West Tyrone of people who have died as a result of it. It is a silent killer, responsible for 60 lung cancer deaths in the Province, as other Members have said. That shows the magnitude of the problem it creates for many of the people we represent. The gas is radioactive and can enter any building easily. It can seep through the ground or pass through floorboards, and when it becomes trapped in buildings without sufficient ventilation its effect on lung tissue can be lethal. That is what is happening in certain parts of our Province. While one sleeps, radon gas continues to percolate inside and outside houses and other property.
Many areas of the Province, apart from my constituency of Strangford, have a problem with this gas. In some areas it is more apparent and lethal than in others. In parts of east Down, radon concentrations need to be constantly monitored. One Member made the point that levels of radon could be up to eight times higher in parts of his constituency. There are areas in my constituency in which they are equally high.
The Department of the Environment provides free radon tests, but only for households considered to be at high risk. Tests to households in less affected areas normally cost £35.

Mrs Iris Robinson: Does the Member share my concern that building control officers experience great difficulty in enforcing the statutory rule when the designated areas defined in the regulations do not coincide with district council and building control areas?

Mr Jim Shannon: I thank my Colleague, the MP-in-waiting for Strangford, for her comments, which were well made. Indeed, the building control regulations, as well as the environmental health regulations, were to be the subjects of my second point.
I want to highlight the £35 charge. Grants should be made available to those households with restricted finances. People on benefits, or those who need help, should qualify, so that tests can take place. Perhaps the Minister could comment on that in his summation of today’s comments.
Communities should not be left open to the health dangers associated with radon gas. That is why the co-operation of property surveyors, building control officers and environmental health officers is required to oversee the prevention of gas seeping into buildings. My Colleague referred to the issue of gas becoming trapped and therefore posing a health threat to those living in the house. The Building Regulations 2000 need to be established, setting out the new requirements that all new buildings, whether residential, commercial or public, must have radon measures installed, such as proper ventilation and underfloor extraction.
In the areas where radon gas is a problem, what about schools, health clinics, health centres, community centres — areas where young people, adults and parents all meet on a regular basis? What about the threat to their health? We want to address that as well.
It is important to recognise that building control areas do not necessarily match the council areas. Therefore, we need a co-ordinated policy. My Colleague referred to that. It is also the responsibility of the Government to increase the profile of this particular natural problem. The Government might not have highlighted this in the way that they should have. They must be more proactive in showing where the problem is. They must publish documentation and assistance that are easily read and understood by those people who have a particular interest or concern. That would enable members of the public to begin to take their own measures to combat the problem. Make them aware of it, show them how you can help, and then take it forward.
Peace of mind is so important. The public needs to be assured that the threat to its health is being addressed. The onus is on the Department, and in this case upon the Minister, to confirm that those directly under radon exposure can be protected. We must have that as our first goal.

Mr Kieran McCarthy: I am not a Member of the Finance and Personnel Committee, but I have great concerns. I will support any proposal coming out of the Assembly or the Committee that will minimise or eradicate the health risks associated with radon gas as soon as possible.
I have raised this serious problem with our Health, Education, Environment and Social Development Ministers, and now with the Minister of Finance and Personnel. While all Ministers recognise that there is a problem, no one has really got to grips with the very serious radon threat. To date, no Department has really taken action to seriously tackle the problem. I hope that the Assembly will insist that time is of the essence.
I am not going to go over what has already been said. The Members who have spoken have said it very well. Private dwellings are of great concern, especially in the radon-affected areas at the moment. However, little or nothing has been said of public buildings until now — we have raised the profile in the Chamber today. People are required to be in those buildings for many hours at a time. I raised the issue of schools in particular. Again, little or no action seems to have been taken.
We must bear in mind the effects of this gas, which can only be discovered after a prolonged period. A recent survey in the Republic revealed that some 400 schools out of 1,700 had a serious level of radon. Immediate action was taken. To date, as far as I am aware, schools in Northern Ireland have been ignored. So many young people in the schools could be at risk.
In Northern Ireland, there are an increasing number of cancer sufferers. We all wonder what is causing that increase. Here we have the knowledge of the cause of lung cancer. It has already been said that some 60 people in Northern Ireland have died as a result of radon gas. That is enough for this Assembly to take immediate action, throughout Northern Ireland, and ensure that our people will not fall victim to radon gas.
As I understand it, representations have been made by over 50 organisations. The chief building control officers in Northern Ireland have made their case — very strongly, as I understand it — to the Committee. Surely they are the people to whom we should listen. The Assembly must act upon the officers’ vast experience; we simply cannot afford to wait any longer.

Mr Peter Weir: I share many of the concerns expressed by my Colleagues on the Finance and Personnel Committee. We are being asked to choose between the lesser of two evils: if we simply accept the building regulations as they stand and withdraw the prayer of annulment, we could be accepting unsatisfactory regulations.
Many of the related issues have already been raised. We could be taking a gamble with public health. Regulation relating to radon appears to be a movable feast; there is no universally agreed acceptable level of risk. For example, the English and Welsh regulations refer to areas with a more than 3% chance of radon contamination; in Scotland, the figure is 1%, as with these regulations. The danger is that we will take a risk with public health, and that may be viewed as a very foolish decision in a few years’ time.
The fact that the system is based on a grid reference using square miles, means that we face a ridiculous situation in which a particular house may be covered by the regulations but the house beside it may not. Building control regulators have said that that would create administrative problems.
For some parts of Northern Ireland — albeit a small percentage — the figures are not available; the squares on the map are blank, simply because there has not been adequate investigation in those areas. One set of squares might be covered by the regulations, and, right beside them, others would not. I am not sure that the House should accept such a partitionist solution, if I might use a phrase that has more resonance for Members opposite. The Assembly should not allow a situation in which some parts of Northern Ireland are covered and some parts are not.
I must temper those remarks. Despite the fact that the best evidence available was provided by building control, there was, during consultation, no universal acceptance that all of Northern Ireland should be covered. At the moment, I am inclined towards the view that all of Northern Ireland should be covered. I want to hear more details and gather more evidence before making up my mind as to whether Northern Ireland as a whole should be covered.
If we accept the prayer of annulment, as suggested by other Members, we will delay other important aspects of building control regulation relating to fire safety and disabled access. Even then, the issue is not absolutely black and white. During the consultation, there was not even universal acceptance that the building regulations were completely right on the matter of disability access.
If the Assembly annuls the regulations, it will delay, by up to a year, the provision of protection to the areas that are most strongly affected by radon. As Mr Hussey said, we must be careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Mr Close read out a long list of people who were consulted, dating from the start of the consultation process in April 1998. However, one of the most blatant omissions from the list is the Northern Ireland Assembly. I appreciate that the Assembly did not exist when the consultation began, but it has been in existence for two and a half years. Yet the Assembly’s only opportunity to consider the regulations has come at the tail end of the process, giving us only a short time to decide whether the regulations should be annulled or accepted.
The Assembly did not have the opportunity to look at these at the pre-drafting stage. With proper investigation at that stage, we could have avoided many of the problems that have arisen today. We could have weighed up the opportunity for amendments. However, now we find ourselves in the position that we either have to fully accept these regulations or get rid of them.
Like other Members, I will be listening very intently to what the Minister has to say with regard to the assurances he can give. The Minister should draw some comfort from the fact that, with the exception of his Budget statement, Members have rarely been so keen to listen to his closing remarks.
I would like a re-examination of the matter. There are, in particular, two important issues. First, the consultation must genuinely include the views of the Assembly, which have been largely ignored until now.
Secondly, if we get the assurances that consultation will happen and that new regulations will be looked at, that consultation must be genuine and the views of practitioners taken on board. We do not want a situation in which the Department starts with a predetermined attitude as to the areas that should be covered and at the end of the process simply rubber-stamps that, having gone through the process of supposed consultation.
If the Committee takes the view that it is not going to push this to an annulment, then this is very much a test case. If consultation turns out simply to be a facade, the Committee will not be so kind to the Minister in the future when deciding on the issue of annulment. I wait with anticipation to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr Mark Durkan: I welcome the opportunity to make a statement on what is clearly an important matter. I recognise and understand from the arguments that have been voiced here today and previously at Committee meetings the strong feelings that Members have on the radon issue. However, let us remember, with regard to building regulations, that it is not the only issue we need to consider.
I do not wish to minimise in any way the fact that when radon concentration is high it poses a serious risk to health. Members have spoken today in strong and advised terms about that risk. Measurements of radon levels in homes have been undertaken, as Members have indicated, by the National Radiological Protection Board for several years, and the results have been published periodically. Over 15,000 results are available, and these provide substantial information on the distribution of radon levels in homes throughout Northern Ireland. This data forms the basis for the National Radiological Protection Board’s most recent advice to Government on the level of radon in homes.
On the basis of a comprehensive survey and report by the board in 1999, it was decided to include radon protection measures in the next update of building regulations. The survey report — which again some Members touched on — was based on five kilometre squares of the Irish grid, and it classified Northern Ireland into four area categories: first, areas where less than 1% of dwellings were above the level at which action is considered necessary to prevent possible damage to health; secondly, areas where 1% to 3% of dwellings were above the action level; thirdly, areas where 3% to 10% of dwellings were above the action level; and fourthly, areas where more than 10% were above the level.
The National Radiological Protection Board recommended that all areas with a risk above 1% should receive protection against radon. Identical recommendations were made by that board for England, Scotland and Wales. The Northern Ireland building regulations laid on 15 December 2000 — the subject of today’s prayer of annulment — require that all new dwellings in areas carrying a risk factor of above 1% should have protective measures at construction stage to prevent the ingress of radon.
A comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom, where regulations have now been introduced, shows that Scotland has adopted the same standard as is proposed for Northern Ireland. England and Wales — as Peter Weir mentioned — will introduce protective measures only in areas where 3% or more of dwellings are above the level at which action is necessary to prevent possible damage to health.
I have acknowledged the concerns expressed by the Finance and Personnel Committee — which have been reinforced by Members this afternoon — that the present building regulations exclude certain areas of Northern Ireland, primarily in County Antrim, parts of Armagh and Down and the Greater Belfast metropolitan area. Members were also anxious that the regulations excluded non-domestic properties such as schools and hospitals.
I have very carefully considered the strong representations made, and I am persuaded that it would be appropriate to take a fresh look at the radon issue. An appropriate period should be allocated to further examine the arguments, such as those that have been suggested today, for a change of policy. That is only proper, so that the views of others, including the construction industry — as mentioned by Peter Robinson — health practitioners and the public can be sought in a proper consultation exercise. I have also indicated to the Finance and Personnel Committee, through Mr Leslie, that I am happy to formally refer the issue to the Committee for its advice. That would also allow a full investigation through that channel.
It was also suggested that allowing a wider consultation on proposals to extend the effect of the regulations would not be beneficial. Seamus Close suggested, on the basis of previous consultations, that nothing new could be gained from a wider consultation. The previous consultation had the proposals that are currently in the regulations as its favoured option. That may have coloured the response rate to the consultation — not least when one looks at what local councils replied to the previous consultation. It is possible that some people in some areas did not see their status or circumstances being changing by the recommended option, so they did not make a response.
Given that the Assembly is talking about a different proposal, it should subject it to specific consultation. The Assembly is not just talking in any new consultation about extending the protection for dwellings to the whole of Northern Ireland but, as the Committee requested, also considering non-domestic properties. The nature of that proposal would be different, and the span of interest in it could be different. Therefore it must be recognised that there is a need for further consultation. If this proposal has the merit and worth that Members attach to it then it is worthy of having the same proper consultation that the measures in the regulations to date have had.
Some Members recognised that during consultation on the regulations not everyone was of the view that not extending the protection to the whole of NorthernIreland was a problem. Some people would feel that where there is no real evidence to suggest a risk, there would be no particular requirement to extend a protection. That view may well express itself again in a further proposal or consultation. We also need to remember that there are other interests at Government level that would need to be reflected in any wider consideration.
(Mr Deputy Speaker [Sir John Gorman] in the Chair)
Some Departments have particular interests in the areas of non-domestic properties. The Housing Division of the Department for Social Development would have an interest. It previously gave a view supporting the approach currently being provided for in the regulations. Therefore any proposal to look at things differently would interest the Department for Social Development.
MrShannon mentioned that the Department of the Environment provides a free test service for houses in designated areas. That Department would be interested in the implications of the whole of NorthernIreland effectively becoming a designated area. Therefore within government, there would need to be some further consultation and consideration of these proposals.
I feel that I am dealing fairly and sensitively with the Committee’s concerns, while reflecting that there are no shortcut answers. These measures need to be subject to the full and proper consultation that people would expect in relation to any other regulations. I hope that in such circumstances the motion for annulment of the Building Regulations 2000 will be withdrawn.
When the Committee discussed the matter on 30January, members were anxious to ensure that other provisions in the regulations, such as access for the disabled, should be introduced without delay. We must remember that those provisions fulfil certain requirements under disability discrimination legislation. They would be safeguarded in the event of annulment proceedings being dropped.
By allowing the building regulations to stand with effect from 1April2001, approximately 50% of the NorthernIreland area would have radon protection measures in place. If the regulations were to be annulled that would not be the case.
MrClose said that no assurance would satisfy him. He made the point after he had, in very strong and fair terms, stressed the importance of the health risk of radon and talked about the number of deaths per year. If we annul the regulations we will, in effect, delay protection for the areas in which it is most obviously needed. Therefore the urgency and importance that MrClose attaches to this matter would not be best served by annulling the regulations. In fact, it would be quite a perverse way of trying to accommodate or reflect that urgency. Surely it makes more sense to take the current regulations, affording the added protection that they require and then, in turn, building on that through the consideration of the measures that the Committee is now asking us to consider. Let us remember that the motion is not only concerned with the protection against radon, but with other measures such as safety.
Some measures deal with windows and glass and others with fire safety, including battery power back-up for hardware; smoke alarms; and safe exits. I thought people would want to see this sort of safety measure progress, but an annulment mechanism will stop all of those key safety measures and safety improvements. As I have said, the regulations say that dwellings must be accessible to people with disabilities. I thought that Members would want to see this key improvement implemented.
If we are to annul these regulations and recast new ones on the wider basis recommended by the Committee, a process of consultation will still be required which will involve examining all these measures again. Depending on the issues involved, this will probably make it a more protracted consultation than the focused process which is all that would be required for the specific, additional measures sought by the Committee.
Some Members have said that finance should not be an issue. This is not an issue of public finance; it is really a question of private finance. The burden will tend to pass to the end user despite the initial costs borne by the construction industry. Some responses to the previous consultation questioned the appropriateness of provisions such as disabled access, for instance, and suggested that their cost would be burdensome. If today’s proceedings were to fall in favour of annulling these measures and consulting on the additional measures proposed by the Committee, the case would be reopened on all these matters with wider consultation on the entirety of the regulations.
I ask the House, and the Committee in particular, to have regard to the fact that people in the House and the Committee do not seem to have a particular problem with what is in the regulations. On the contrary, they have a very legitimate and soundly expressed problem with what is not — repeat: not — in the regulations. We should proceed with the contents of the existing regulations and then pursue what is left out through a timely and concentrated consultation exercise.
I must remind Members that these regulations will be subject to European approval as well. While I have undertaken to refer the matter formally to the Committee, it could take several months for Europe to respond. That is one of the reasons for my not pretending to be in absolute control of a specific timetable.
MrClose mentioned that I had been asked by the Committee to give an assurance of one absolute outcome by a specific date and that I had resiled from giving that specific assurance. On the very good grounds that I have already outlined, I simply could not give that assurance. Other interests and factors are involved. However, I believe that we can approach this in a time-effective way.
I fully appreciate the points that have been made about the consultation process. In particular, I recognise that the Committee wants to be assured that on future occasions its role will be invoked in a much more significant way and at an earlier stage in the preparation of statutory rules. I assure the Committee and the House that this point is well taken.
I hope that I have made the necessary acknowledgements of the positions outlined by the Committee. I have addressed some of its concerns and dealt with the serious arguments commending provisions contained in the regulations. I hope that, on this basis, the Committee will feel able to withdraw its motion. If it does not feel able to do so, I hope that the Assembly will endorse a delay with these regulations and note that I have already committed myself to pursuing other areas of outstanding concern to the Committee.

Mr James Leslie: I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I extend particular thanks to members of the Finance and Personnel Committee for having managed to act in concert, without having arranged to do so, and for assembling a fairly well thought out set of arguments which reflect the Committee’s concerns.
I am pleased that the Minister seems to accept the thrust of the Committee’s proposal in what I believe is a vital area of public safety, and I also note his undertaking in relation to pre-drafting scrutiny. I would have been more comfortable with the Minister’s remarks had he spent slightly less time talking about the extent of further consultation that is needed. However, I do believe this matter to be sufficiently worthy to merit it, and I appreciate that, if this regulation is laid, the process of consultation cannot start until the regulation comes into force in April. If it does start then, it will be possible to lay an amended regulation towards the end of the year, which could come into force by April 2002. Therefore, if it were to emerge from further consultation and consideration that it was deemed appropriate to designate the whole of Northern Ireland as a radon- affected area, it would be possible to make a regulation to that effect by next April.
I acknowledge the Minister’s remarks about the value of bringing the other matters covered by this regulation into force by the earlier date of April 2001. The Committee, throughout its deliberations, was entirely aware of the significance of achieving this.
In the light of the undertakings which the Minister has made to the Assembly, and having taken the temperature of the Committee members — for this involves our revisiting our earlier decision to move the motion — I think it appropriate for me to ask leave of the Assembly to withdraw the motion of annulment.

Sir John Gorman: Leave to withdraw requires unanimous consent. [Interruption] It is clear that there is not unanimity, so I shall put the Question.
Question put and negatived.
Adjourned at 5.45 pm.